Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #532266 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-11 19:50 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-11-25 22:57 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 180 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-11-11 19:50 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 04:22 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-12 10:05 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 19:10 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-13 05:52 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-13 19:13 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-13 19:38 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-14 01:27 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-14 15:55 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-14 21:28 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-15 10:30 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-15 20:23 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-16 05:42 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-16 19:29 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-17 05:08 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-17 20:22 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 14:16 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-13 16:11 -0600
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 08:43 -0600
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-12 11:06 -0600
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 19:01 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-11-14 15:52 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-15 01:03 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-11-18 02:09 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-18 19:39 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-19 00:27 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-19 05:40 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-19 07:50 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-19 18:37 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 11:47 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. "Sam Gordon" <invalid@examplll.com> - 2015-11-19 11:58 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 12:21 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-19 23:35 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-20 07:22 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-20 09:20 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-20 17:47 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-20 15:31 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-20 21:56 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-21 08:18 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-21 19:02 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-22 09:17 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-22 19:07 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-23 08:11 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-23 18:24 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-24 21:37 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 19:08 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 23:33 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-25 13:44 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 06:25 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-26 15:19 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-26 08:51 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-27 14:06 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-27 20:10 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-15 10:00 -0600
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 10:21 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-15 14:18 -0600
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 20:08 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-25 19:12 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-26 15:19 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-24 22:35 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-25 06:08 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-21 14:37 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-21 18:49 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-22 14:50 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-22 19:17 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-23 14:13 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-23 18:32 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-24 13:20 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-24 19:38 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-25 13:43 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-25 19:25 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-22 11:03 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-22 19:19 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 11:46 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-22 20:27 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 12:58 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-22 21:04 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-22 19:05 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-23 00:59 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 18:46 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-23 06:07 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 04:00 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-23 18:37 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 20:17 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-11-19 16:07 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-20 00:37 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-11-22 16:28 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-23 01:10 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-11-25 14:13 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-25 23:37 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-11-29 16:17 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-30 01:22 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-12-03 15:12 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-04 00:15 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-03 23:34 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-04 05:14 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-12-05 17:01 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-06 02:37 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-06 00:55 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-12-06 15:07 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-06 10:15 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-06 18:51 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-07 03:23 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-12-07 13:46 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-07 19:20 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-12-07 15:53 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-06 18:44 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-12-14 15:12 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> - 2015-12-14 16:56 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-14 13:13 -0600
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 19:32 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> - 2015-12-14 20:47 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 21:36 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> - 2015-12-14 22:33 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 00:09 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-14 21:57 -0600
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 05:00 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Jürgen Großenbuch <jurgengb@adenauer.org> - 2015-12-15 15:02 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 19:13 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-12-15 13:06 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 19:31 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-14 22:11 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 03:44 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-14 23:04 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 05:01 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-15 06:36 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-12-12 02:43 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-12 19:18 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 00:48 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-13 06:08 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 03:21 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-13 19:13 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 14:37 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-13 20:36 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 15:48 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-13 21:06 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 19:58 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 01:32 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 20:54 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 03:15 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 19:55 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 01:52 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 22:38 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 06:07 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-14 22:38 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 05:04 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-15 06:50 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-12-15 13:06 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-15 08:53 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 19:52 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 19:48 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-15 22:12 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-16 03:44 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> - 2015-12-13 20:15 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-13 20:20 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> - 2015-12-13 20:37 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-13 21:06 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-12-15 02:24 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 20:03 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-26 15:18 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-11-27 01:32 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-27 14:06 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-11-12 15:17 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 23:34 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-13 05:57 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-13 19:23 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-13 19:53 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. emptypost@hotmail.com - 2015-11-19 19:26 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. emptypost@hotmail.com - 2015-11-19 19:40 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. emptypost@hotmail.com - 2015-11-20 15:57 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-21 00:30 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-20 21:53 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-21 07:15 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-21 13:46 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-21 19:57 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-21 15:50 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-21 22:44 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-21 22:30 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-22 05:14 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. emptypost@hotmail.com - 2015-11-25 22:57 -0800
Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 19:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <p33s6bp5to7pr1ma6qu91bg2khd059p1mm@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #538922 |
On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:36:18 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 19:13:07 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> <snip> >>>If you upgraded your CPU and operating system, but did not port your >>>precious programs as the world advanced past non standard programming >>>languages, that is your problem. >> >> I already wrote them and debugged them. Where did I agree to let >> Microsoft make work for me by constantly adapting to their whims of >> the day? > >If you upgraded your CPU and operating system, but did not port your >precious programs as the world advanced past non standard programming >languages, that is your problem. You already said that. Addressed above. >If you had used a language that adhered to a standard, you wouldn't >be having any problems with YOUR choice in doing upgrades. "The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose from." - Andrew_S._Tanenbaum QBASIC was written to a M$ Standard. They were good at doing that kind of thing; regardless of the standards valued elsewhere. It ran fine in a 16-bit environment. M$ abandonned 16-bit environments. Hence, the current rants. <snip> >>>>>> One feature of QBASIC that is at least rare in later languages: the >>>>>> "immediate mode" where the values of all variables known to the >>>>>> program at the point where an error happens in a program are available >>>>>> by accessing their values at the command line via the "print" command. >>>>> >>>>>Nonsense; almost all modern programming languages have such a feature. >>>> >>>> Not as easily. >>> >>>Bullshit, this is just more whinning. >> >> Apparently not: >> <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/24938527/can-php-cli-return-immediate-results-in-the-terminal-window> >> > >PHP is just one of many languages. I see you know nothing about debugging. I said "not as easily." My statement seems to be accurate. <snip> >> You seem to be unwilling to recognize that M$ created problems for >> others. Why are you so resistant to recognizing that fact? > >Microsoft did not create any problems for anyone. > >Microsoft released new products which people choose to buy. > <snip> >> If they need to be installed with admin rights, they may not do do me >> any good if I need to run a compatible BASIC program *now*. > >Why would anyone need to run a decades old program in an obsolete >language "now"? > >Why would you not have admin rights unless the computer was not yours >and therefor not your toy to play with? Typical IT control-freak mindset: I know what everyone needs installed on the machine they use. If they need something else, they are playing. If they need it immediately, they should have been more clairvoyant and made arrangements for me to interrupt their work so I could "install" what they need. >>>> And I agree with Max that it was a convenient a way to pass simple >>>> programs around in a language that was a common denominator on all >>>> machines. >>> >>>Qbasic was never standardized and has never run on "all machines" by >>>any stretch of the imagination. >> >> It was backward compatible and on all Windows machines. > >Backward compatible and stadardized are two different things. So what? Later versions of the BASIC installed on Windows machines were backward compatible, which is what users needed. They didn't care about standards. And standards change, which is another way things can become broken. >ANSI X3.60-1978 "For minimal BASIC" is a standard BASIC. >The world of "all machines" is more than Windows machines. Pickiness that is irrelevant to the context of the discussion, which was and is the ability of modern Windows versions to run 16-bit DOS programs; specificially, QBASIC. >>>Passing programs around, no matter how simple or complex, is trivial >>>these days. >> >> For you. > >And for just about everyone other than you apparently. And many people I have encountered who have no interest in rewriting things that worked fine on their last machine. Or any interest in installing **someone else's** favorite programming language. >> I have worked with people who have no interest or willingness to deal >> with any level of complexity in driving software. It doesn't interest >> them. It has come to interest me less because I have been there and >> done that. M$ making change for the sake of change just pisses me off >> now. > >Meaningless screed. Meaningless ... why? >Microsoft changes things to address what Microsoft feels is the desires >of their customer base. Their customer base is now corporate IT departments, just like that of the former evil empire. Home computers get what can: 1. Be bolted onto the business versions 2. Further the interests of software developers who similarly dislike "personal computing." The failure to provide a 16-bit environment helped software developers who now had a "replacement" market for things that would have worked fine otherwise. >>>No one held a gun to your head and forced you to abandon Windows 3 >>>or Windows XP; it was your choice. >> >> M$ dropping support and leaving XP in whatever level of brokenness and >> vulnerability it had when they decided to pull the plug wouldn't have >> had anything to do with it, would it? > >I have no idea why you are not still running Windows XP. > >I have software that would require major, i.e. cost a lot of money, to >upgrade to run on a later Microsoft OS, so I keep a machine running >Windows XP just to support it and will likely continue to do so for >years to come. By your own admission, the lack of backward compatibility after WinXP is causing you to maintain another computer setup, which has real estate requirements for a monitor, keyboard, and mouse. If a home user has the extra space, they should also have the computer networked for ease of access to the files needed by or created by the old software. In the minds of many, that qualifies as "M$ creating problems" for those who want to do all their work on one machine. >Next I suppose you will be whinning about Ford dropping support for the >Model T. > >>>> They screwed the pooch with Win 10. >>> >>>See above, whinner. >> >> Not a whinner ... a former customer who is voting with his feet and >> has no interest in contributing to M$'s profits on the path I see them >> taking. > >That is your choice. Indeed. >If you think you know how to do it better than Microsoft, nothing is >keeping you from starting your own company to provide an OS with >support for a decades old version of BASIC and 16 bit programs. Or switch to Linux. >I'm sure there is a huge customer base out there for that... There is a growing customer base for Linux. Win 10 is a reason why.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-14 01:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8vj1kc-208.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #538956 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:36:18 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 19:13:07 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> > > <snip> > >>>>If you upgraded your CPU and operating system, but did not port your >>>>precious programs as the world advanced past non standard programming >>>>languages, that is your problem. >>> >>> I already wrote them and debugged them. Where did I agree to let >>> Microsoft make work for me by constantly adapting to their whims of >>> the day? >> >>If you upgraded your CPU and operating system, but did not port your >>precious programs as the world advanced past non standard programming >>languages, that is your problem. > > You already said that. Addressed above. Yep, but it doesn't seem to sink in. > >>If you had used a language that adhered to a standard, you wouldn't >>be having any problems with YOUR choice in doing upgrades. > > "The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose > from." - Andrew_S._Tanenbaum > > QBASIC was written to a M$ Standard. They were good at doing that kind > of thing; regardless of the standards valued elsewhere. Microsoft doesn't set standards. If you don't like their business model, don't buy their products then whine about it. > It ran fine in a 16-bit environment. M$ abandonned 16-bit > environments. As did everyone else in the world. > Hence, the current rants. Hence you have been left behind the tide of progress. > > <snip> > >>>>>>> One feature of QBASIC that is at least rare in later languages: the >>>>>>> "immediate mode" where the values of all variables known to the >>>>>>> program at the point where an error happens in a program are available >>>>>>> by accessing their values at the command line via the "print" command. >>>>>> >>>>>>Nonsense; almost all modern programming languages have such a feature. >>>>> >>>>> Not as easily. >>>> >>>>Bullshit, this is just more whinning. >>> >>> Apparently not: >>> <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/24938527/can-php-cli-return-immediate-results-in-the-terminal-window> >>> >> >>PHP is just one of many languages. I see you know nothing about debugging. > > I said "not as easily." My statement seems to be accurate. I guess for someone that is clueless debugging can be difficult. > <snip> > >>> You seem to be unwilling to recognize that M$ created problems for >>> others. Why are you so resistant to recognizing that fact? >> >>Microsoft did not create any problems for anyone. >> >>Microsoft released new products which people choose to buy. >> > <snip> > >>> If they need to be installed with admin rights, they may not do do me >>> any good if I need to run a compatible BASIC program *now*. >> >>Why would anyone need to run a decades old program in an obsolete >>language "now"? >> >>Why would you not have admin rights unless the computer was not yours >>and therefor not your toy to play with? > > Typical IT control-freak mindset: I know what everyone needs installed > on the machine they use. If they need something else, they are > playing. If they need it immediately, they should have been more > clairvoyant and made arrangements for me to interrupt their work so I > could "install" what they need. You have no more right to install software on someone else's computer than you have to put up wallpaper in someone else's house. Good employees that see a way the company can be improved go to management and make their pitch. Self righteous ass clowns that can't follow company SOP need to be shown the exit door. >>>>> And I agree with Max that it was a convenient a way to pass simple >>>>> programs around in a language that was a common denominator on all >>>>> machines. >>>> >>>>Qbasic was never standardized and has never run on "all machines" by >>>>any stretch of the imagination. >>> >>> It was backward compatible and on all Windows machines. >> >>Backward compatible and stadardized are two different things. > > So what? Later versions of the BASIC installed on Windows machines > were backward compatible, which is what users needed. They didn't care > about standards. And standards change, which is another way things can > become broken. Drooling gibberish. As there has been no popular outcry for Qbasic, it is obvious that there are few to no people that need it. >>ANSI X3.60-1978 "For minimal BASIC" is a standard BASIC. > >>The world of "all machines" is more than Windows machines. > > Pickiness that is irrelevant to the context of the discussion, which > was and is the ability of modern Windows versions to run 16-bit DOS > programs; specificially, QBASIC. Nope, extremely relevant, but you haven't a clue what standards mean. >>>>Passing programs around, no matter how simple or complex, is trivial >>>>these days. >>> >>> For you. >> >>And for just about everyone other than you apparently. > > And many people I have encountered who have no interest in rewriting > things that worked fine on their last machine. Or any interest in > installing **someone else's** favorite programming language. And apparently those things are useless or they would have either ported them or installed one of the free versions of BASIC that would run them. >>> I have worked with people who have no interest or willingness to deal >>> with any level of complexity in driving software. It doesn't interest >>> them. It has come to interest me less because I have been there and >>> done that. M$ making change for the sake of change just pisses me off >>> now. >> >>Meaningless screed. > > Meaningless ... why? You are just ranting about what YOU think other people think. >>Microsoft changes things to address what Microsoft feels is the desires >>of their customer base. > > Their customer base is now corporate IT departments, just like that of > the former evil empire. Home computers get what can: > 1. Be bolted onto the business versions > 2. Further the interests of software developers who similarly dislike > "personal computing." Childish nonsense. > The failure to provide a 16-bit environment helped software developers > who now had a "replacement" market for things that would have worked > fine otherwise. Silly, childish nonsense. Software developers use a standard language to help make their product as widely usable as possible. Do you think Netscape is written in BASIC? >>>>No one held a gun to your head and forced you to abandon Windows 3 >>>>or Windows XP; it was your choice. >>> >>> M$ dropping support and leaving XP in whatever level of brokenness and >>> vulnerability it had when they decided to pull the plug wouldn't have >>> had anything to do with it, would it? >> >>I have no idea why you are not still running Windows XP. >> >>I have software that would require major, i.e. cost a lot of money, to >>upgrade to run on a later Microsoft OS, so I keep a machine running >>Windows XP just to support it and will likely continue to do so for >>years to come. > > By your own admission, the lack of backward compatibility after WinXP > is causing you to maintain another computer setup, which has real > estate requirements for a monitor, keyboard, and mouse. If a home user > has the extra space, they should also have the computer networked for > ease of access to the files needed by or created by the old software. It is a laptop, fool, and all the data files are on network attached RAID storage. And no, it did not cause me to maintain another computer setup, it is the same setup I have had from day 1. > In the minds of many, that qualifies as "M$ creating problems" for > those who want to do all their work on one machine. There is no problem. The machine in question has one, and only one purpose; accounting. It would be a little difficult for me to develop Unix and Linux applications on a Windows laptop. >>Next I suppose you will be whinning about Ford dropping support for the >>Model T. >> >>>>> They screwed the pooch with Win 10. >>>> >>>>See above, whinner. >>> >>> Not a whinner ... a former customer who is voting with his feet and >>> has no interest in contributing to M$'s profits on the path I see them >>> taking. >> >>That is your choice. > > Indeed. So quit whinning about your choices. >>If you think you know how to do it better than Microsoft, nothing is >>keeping you from starting your own company to provide an OS with >>support for a decades old version of BASIC and 16 bit programs. > > Or switch to Linux. So quit whinning about Winows. >>I'm sure there is a huge customer base out there for that... > > There is a growing customer base for Linux. Win 10 is a reason why. Yes and no. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 22:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mlds6b5gb31s3c95bcg07i5oo6djgjgsfh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #538960 |
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 01:52:08 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:36:18 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 19:13:07 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >> >> <snip> >> >>>>>If you upgraded your CPU and operating system, but did not port your >>>>>precious programs as the world advanced past non standard programming >>>>>languages, that is your problem. >>>> >>>> I already wrote them and debugged them. Where did I agree to let >>>> Microsoft make work for me by constantly adapting to their whims of >>>> the day? >>> >>>If you upgraded your CPU and operating system, but did not port your >>>precious programs as the world advanced past non standard programming >>>languages, that is your problem. >> >> You already said that. Addressed above. > >Yep, but it doesn't seem to sink in. The reply doesn't seem to sink in. > >> >>>If you had used a language that adhered to a standard, you wouldn't >>>be having any problems with YOUR choice in doing upgrades. >> >> "The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose >> from." - Andrew_S._Tanenbaum >> >> QBASIC was written to a M$ Standard. They were good at doing that kind >> of thing; regardless of the standards valued elsewhere. > >Microsoft doesn't set standards. They have no internal standards? Really? >If you don't like their business model, don't buy their products then >whine about it. > >> It ran fine in a 16-bit environment. M$ abandonned 16-bit >> environments. > >As did everyone else in the world. Except those including the writers of DOSBox, VDOS, and DOSemu; and those who use them. >> Hence, the current rants. > >Hence you have been left behind the tide of progress. I have found a way to reuse things without rewriting them -- no thanks to M$. >> <snip> >> >>>>>>>> One feature of QBASIC that is at least rare in later languages: the >>>>>>>> "immediate mode" where the values of all variables known to the >>>>>>>> program at the point where an error happens in a program are available >>>>>>>> by accessing their values at the command line via the "print" command. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Nonsense; almost all modern programming languages have such a feature. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not as easily. >>>>> >>>>>Bullshit, this is just more whinning. >>>> >>>> Apparently not: >>>> <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/24938527/can-php-cli-return-immediate-results-in-the-terminal-window> >>>> >>> >>>PHP is just one of many languages. I see you know nothing about debugging. >> >> I said "not as easily." My statement seems to be accurate. > >I guess for someone that is clueless debugging can be difficult. So you want people who were comfortable with QBASIC to install new software and learn debugging techniques for this "new and improved" software -- with no benefit to them other than to find a new way to do the same thing they could do before. That is not "progress." >> <snip> >> >>>> You seem to be unwilling to recognize that M$ created problems for >>>> others. Why are you so resistant to recognizing that fact? >>> >>>Microsoft did not create any problems for anyone. >>> >>>Microsoft released new products which people choose to buy. >>> >> <snip> >> >>>> If they need to be installed with admin rights, they may not do do me >>>> any good if I need to run a compatible BASIC program *now*. >>> >>>Why would anyone need to run a decades old program in an obsolete >>>language "now"? >>> >>>Why would you not have admin rights unless the computer was not yours >>>and therefor not your toy to play with? >> >> Typical IT control-freak mindset: I know what everyone needs installed >> on the machine they use. If they need something else, they are >> playing. If they need it immediately, they should have been more >> clairvoyant and made arrangements for me to interrupt their work so I >> could "install" what they need. > >You have no more right to install software on someone else's computer >than you have to put up wallpaper in someone else's house. > >Good employees that see a way the company can be improved go to management >and make their pitch. > >Self righteous ass clowns that can't follow company SOP need to be >shown the exit door. If QBASIC was installed on the machine, it would safely run simple task-specific programs. >>>>>> And I agree with Max that it was a convenient a way to pass simple >>>>>> programs around in a language that was a common denominator on all >>>>>> machines. >>>>> >>>>>Qbasic was never standardized and has never run on "all machines" by >>>>>any stretch of the imagination. >>>> >>>> It was backward compatible and on all Windows machines. >>> >>>Backward compatible and stadardized are two different things. >> >> So what? Later versions of the BASIC installed on Windows machines >> were backward compatible, which is what users needed. They didn't care >> about standards. And standards change, which is another way things can >> become broken. > >Drooling gibberish. Unsubstantiated attempt to discredit. >As there has been no popular outcry for Qbasic, it is obvious that >there are few to no people that need it. > >>>ANSI X3.60-1978 "For minimal BASIC" is a standard BASIC. >> >>>The world of "all machines" is more than Windows machines. >> >> Pickiness that is irrelevant to the context of the discussion, which >> was and is the ability of modern Windows versions to run 16-bit DOS >> programs; specificially, QBASIC. > >Nope, extremely relevant, but you haven't a clue what standards mean. Which standard? How does it apply to the ease of runnig QBASIC in Win8? >>>>>Passing programs around, no matter how simple or complex, is trivial >>>>>these days. >>>> >>>> For you. >>> >>>And for just about everyone other than you apparently. >> >> And many people I have encountered who have no interest in rewriting >> things that worked fine on their last machine. Or any interest in >> installing **someone else's** favorite programming language. > >And apparently those things are useless or they would have either >ported them or installed one of the free versions of BASIC that >would run them. Or installed VDOS or DOSBox .. or moved to Linux and run them in DOSemu. >>>> I have worked with people who have no interest or willingness to deal >>>> with any level of complexity in driving software. It doesn't interest >>>> them. It has come to interest me less because I have been there and >>>> done that. M$ making change for the sake of change just pisses me off >>>> now. >>> >>>Meaningless screed. >> >> Meaningless ... why? > >You are just ranting about what YOU think other people think. I have encountered these people. You apparently live in a bubble. >>>Microsoft changes things to address what Microsoft feels is the desires >>>of their customer base. >> >> Their customer base is now corporate IT departments, just like that of >> the former evil empire. Home computers get what can: >> 1. Be bolted onto the business versions >> 2. Further the interests of software developers who similarly dislike >> "personal computing." > >Childish nonsense. Actually, both are spot on. >> The failure to provide a 16-bit environment helped software developers >> who now had a "replacement" market for things that would have worked >> fine otherwise. > >Silly, childish nonsense. Again, spot on; just that you find it to be an inconvenient truth for some reason. Are you a shill for M$? >Software developers use a standard language to help make their product >as widely usable as possible. > >Do you think Netscape is written in BASIC? People writing one-off programs for their own use or for sharing with a limited don't need to waste time on form over function. >>>>>No one held a gun to your head and forced you to abandon Windows 3 >>>>>or Windows XP; it was your choice. >>>> >>>> M$ dropping support and leaving XP in whatever level of brokenness and >>>> vulnerability it had when they decided to pull the plug wouldn't have >>>> had anything to do with it, would it? >>> >>>I have no idea why you are not still running Windows XP. >>> >>>I have software that would require major, i.e. cost a lot of money, to >>>upgrade to run on a later Microsoft OS, so I keep a machine running >>>Windows XP just to support it and will likely continue to do so for >>>years to come. >> >> By your own admission, the lack of backward compatibility after WinXP >> is causing you to maintain another computer setup, which has real >> estate requirements for a monitor, keyboard, and mouse. If a home user >> has the extra space, they should also have the computer networked for >> ease of access to the files needed by or created by the old software. > >It is a laptop, fool, and all the data files are on network attached >RAID storage. Which is what I said about having it networked. Your situation doesn't help the home user who has counter space for one computer. >And no, it did not cause me to maintain another computer setup, it is >the same setup I have had from day 1. > >> In the minds of many, that qualifies as "M$ creating problems" for >> those who want to do all their work on one machine. > >There is no problem. > >The machine in question has one, and only one purpose; accounting. It is also networked. How nice for you. Your solution doesn't help the home user with counter space for one computer. >It would be a little difficult for me to develop Unix and Linux >applications on a Windows laptop. > >>>Next I suppose you will be whinning about Ford dropping support for the >>>Model T. >>> >>>>>> They screwed the pooch with Win 10. >>>>> >>>>>See above, whinner. >>>> >>>> Not a whinner ... a former customer who is voting with his feet and >>>> has no interest in contributing to M$'s profits on the path I see them >>>> taking. >>> >>>That is your choice. >> >> Indeed. > >So quit whinning about your choices. > >>>If you think you know how to do it better than Microsoft, nothing is >>>keeping you from starting your own company to provide an OS with >>>support for a decades old version of BASIC and 16 bit programs. >> >> Or switch to Linux. > >So quit whinning about Winows. > >>>I'm sure there is a huge customer base out there for that... >> >> There is a growing customer base for Linux. Win 10 is a reason why. > >Yes and no. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-14 06:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1u22kc-od9.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #538992 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 01:52:08 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:36:18 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 19:13:07 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>>>>If you upgraded your CPU and operating system, but did not port your >>>>>>precious programs as the world advanced past non standard programming >>>>>>languages, that is your problem. >>>>> >>>>> I already wrote them and debugged them. Where did I agree to let >>>>> Microsoft make work for me by constantly adapting to their whims of >>>>> the day? >>>> >>>>If you upgraded your CPU and operating system, but did not port your >>>>precious programs as the world advanced past non standard programming >>>>languages, that is your problem. >>> >>> You already said that. Addressed above. >> >>Yep, but it doesn't seem to sink in. > > The reply doesn't seem to sink in. > >> >>> >>>>If you had used a language that adhered to a standard, you wouldn't >>>>be having any problems with YOUR choice in doing upgrades. >>> >>> "The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose >>> from." - Andrew_S._Tanenbaum >>> >>> QBASIC was written to a M$ Standard. They were good at doing that kind >>> of thing; regardless of the standards valued elsewhere. >> >>Microsoft doesn't set standards. > > They have no internal standards? Really? You know what I meant; grow up. >>If you don't like their business model, don't buy their products then >>whine about it. >> >>> It ran fine in a 16-bit environment. M$ abandonned 16-bit >>> environments. >> >>As did everyone else in the world. > > Except those including the writers of DOSBox, VDOS, and DOSemu; and > those who use them. Yep, big time sellers, those. How is the stock in those guys doing compared to Microsoft? >>> Hence, the current rants. >> >>Hence you have been left behind the tide of progress. > > I have found a way to reuse things without rewriting them -- no thanks > to M$. Well, goody goody for you. Now you can stop whinning about Microsoft. > >>> <snip> >>> >>>>>>>>> One feature of QBASIC that is at least rare in later languages: the >>>>>>>>> "immediate mode" where the values of all variables known to the >>>>>>>>> program at the point where an error happens in a program are available >>>>>>>>> by accessing their values at the command line via the "print" command. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Nonsense; almost all modern programming languages have such a feature. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not as easily. >>>>>> >>>>>>Bullshit, this is just more whinning. >>>>> >>>>> Apparently not: >>>>> <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/24938527/can-php-cli-return-immediate-results-in-the-terminal-window> >>>>> >>>> >>>>PHP is just one of many languages. I see you know nothing about debugging. >>> >>> I said "not as easily." My statement seems to be accurate. >> >>I guess for someone that is clueless debugging can be difficult. > > So you want people who were comfortable with QBASIC to install new > software and learn debugging techniques for this "new and improved" > software -- with no benefit to them other than to find a new way to do > the same thing they could do before. Or they could go on using Windows 3, Windows 2000, Windows XP. Or they could grow with the rest of the world. > That is not "progress." You don't seem to have much of a grasp on reality. >>> <snip> >>> >>>>> You seem to be unwilling to recognize that M$ created problems for >>>>> others. Why are you so resistant to recognizing that fact? >>>> >>>>Microsoft did not create any problems for anyone. >>>> >>>>Microsoft released new products which people choose to buy. >>>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>>> If they need to be installed with admin rights, they may not do do me >>>>> any good if I need to run a compatible BASIC program *now*. >>>> >>>>Why would anyone need to run a decades old program in an obsolete >>>>language "now"? >>>> >>>>Why would you not have admin rights unless the computer was not yours >>>>and therefor not your toy to play with? >>> >>> Typical IT control-freak mindset: I know what everyone needs installed >>> on the machine they use. If they need something else, they are >>> playing. If they need it immediately, they should have been more >>> clairvoyant and made arrangements for me to interrupt their work so I >>> could "install" what they need. >> >>You have no more right to install software on someone else's computer >>than you have to put up wallpaper in someone else's house. >> >>Good employees that see a way the company can be improved go to management >>and make their pitch. >> >>Self righteous ass clowns that can't follow company SOP need to be >>shown the exit door. > > If QBASIC was installed on the machine, it would safely run simple > task-specific programs. Except there is no demand for QBASIC as is shown by the utter lack of any real demand that Microsoft support it and the very little interest in more modern versions of QBASIC that are available. You are tilting at windmills. >>>>>>> And I agree with Max that it was a convenient a way to pass simple >>>>>>> programs around in a language that was a common denominator on all >>>>>>> machines. >>>>>> >>>>>>Qbasic was never standardized and has never run on "all machines" by >>>>>>any stretch of the imagination. >>>>> >>>>> It was backward compatible and on all Windows machines. >>>> >>>>Backward compatible and stadardized are two different things. >>> >>> So what? Later versions of the BASIC installed on Windows machines >>> were backward compatible, which is what users needed. They didn't care >>> about standards. And standards change, which is another way things can >>> become broken. >> >>Drooling gibberish. > > Unsubstantiated attempt to discredit. It is still gibberish. The standard for C has changed over the years yet even the earliest C programs ever written can still be compiled today. >>As there has been no popular outcry for Qbasic, it is obvious that >>there are few to no people that need it. >> >>>>ANSI X3.60-1978 "For minimal BASIC" is a standard BASIC. >>> >>>>The world of "all machines" is more than Windows machines. >>> >>> Pickiness that is irrelevant to the context of the discussion, which >>> was and is the ability of modern Windows versions to run 16-bit DOS >>> programs; specificially, QBASIC. >> >>Nope, extremely relevant, but you haven't a clue what standards mean. > > Which standard? How does it apply to the ease of runnig QBASIC in > Win8? There is no standard QBASIC. There never has been a standard for QBASIC, which is one of the reasons it became obsolete. >>>>>>Passing programs around, no matter how simple or complex, is trivial >>>>>>these days. >>>>> >>>>> For you. >>>> >>>>And for just about everyone other than you apparently. >>> >>> And many people I have encountered who have no interest in rewriting >>> things that worked fine on their last machine. Or any interest in >>> installing **someone else's** favorite programming language. >> >>And apparently those things are useless or they would have either >>ported them or installed one of the free versions of BASIC that >>would run them. > > Or installed VDOS or DOSBox .. or moved to Linux and run them in > DOSemu. So problem solved, you can quit whinning now. >>>>> I have worked with people who have no interest or willingness to deal >>>>> with any level of complexity in driving software. It doesn't interest >>>>> them. It has come to interest me less because I have been there and >>>>> done that. M$ making change for the sake of change just pisses me off >>>>> now. >>>> >>>>Meaningless screed. >>> >>> Meaningless ... why? >> >>You are just ranting about what YOU think other people think. > > I have encountered these people. You apparently live in a bubble. Nope, I've always been in the professional world at the cutting edge of technology. The last time I saw anyone in industry use BASIC for anything was about 25 years ago and as soon as they got a compiler the application was ported to FORTRAN. >>>>Microsoft changes things to address what Microsoft feels is the desires >>>>of their customer base. >>> >>> Their customer base is now corporate IT departments, just like that of >>> the former evil empire. Home computers get what can: >>> 1. Be bolted onto the business versions >>> 2. Further the interests of software developers who similarly dislike >>> "personal computing." >> >>Childish nonsense. > > Actually, both are spot on. Actually both are childish nonsense. >>> The failure to provide a 16-bit environment helped software developers >>> who now had a "replacement" market for things that would have worked >>> fine otherwise. >> >>Silly, childish nonsense. > > Again, spot on; just that you find it to be an inconvenient truth for > some reason. Nope, silly childish nonsense. > Are you a shill for M$? Are you 12 years old and mentally challenged? >>Software developers use a standard language to help make their product >>as widely usable as possible. >> >>Do you think Netscape is written in BASIC? > > People writing one-off programs for their own use or for sharing with > a limited don't need to waste time on form over function. You mean hobbyists? >>>>>>No one held a gun to your head and forced you to abandon Windows 3 >>>>>>or Windows XP; it was your choice. >>>>> >>>>> M$ dropping support and leaving XP in whatever level of brokenness and >>>>> vulnerability it had when they decided to pull the plug wouldn't have >>>>> had anything to do with it, would it? >>>> >>>>I have no idea why you are not still running Windows XP. >>>> >>>>I have software that would require major, i.e. cost a lot of money, to >>>>upgrade to run on a later Microsoft OS, so I keep a machine running >>>>Windows XP just to support it and will likely continue to do so for >>>>years to come. >>> >>> By your own admission, the lack of backward compatibility after WinXP >>> is causing you to maintain another computer setup, which has real >>> estate requirements for a monitor, keyboard, and mouse. If a home user >>> has the extra space, they should also have the computer networked for >>> ease of access to the files needed by or created by the old software. >> >>It is a laptop, fool, and all the data files are on network attached >>RAID storage. > > Which is what I said about having it networked. Your situation doesn't > help the home user who has counter space for one computer. Oh grou up. I work out of a home office and there are eight computers here, including two Solaris SPARC servers. >>And no, it did not cause me to maintain another computer setup, it is >>the same setup I have had from day 1. >> >>> In the minds of many, that qualifies as "M$ creating problems" for >>> those who want to do all their work on one machine. >> >>There is no problem. >> >>The machine in question has one, and only one purpose; accounting. > > It is also networked. How nice for you. Eveyone is networked these days or computers would have little home appeal. > Your solution doesn't help the home user with counter space for one > computer. Oh grou up. I work out of a home office and there are eight computers here, including two Solaris SPARC servers. >>It would be a little difficult for me to develop Unix and Linux >>applications on a Windows laptop. >> >>>>Next I suppose you will be whinning about Ford dropping support for the >>>>Model T. >>>> >>>>>>> They screwed the pooch with Win 10. >>>>>> >>>>>>See above, whinner. >>>>> >>>>> Not a whinner ... a former customer who is voting with his feet and >>>>> has no interest in contributing to M$'s profits on the path I see them >>>>> taking. >>>> >>>>That is your choice. >>> >>> Indeed. >> >>So quit whinning about your choices. >> >>>>If you think you know how to do it better than Microsoft, nothing is >>>>keeping you from starting your own company to provide an OS with >>>>support for a decades old version of BASIC and 16 bit programs. >>> >>> Or switch to Linux. >> >>So quit whinning about Winows. >> >>>>I'm sure there is a huge customer base out there for that... >>> >>> There is a growing customer base for Linux. Win 10 is a reason why. >> >>Yes and no. >> >> > -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-14 22:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ol1v6bpvcbmf8s5k3277tr76v4scqi8cd3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #539011 |
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 06:07:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 01:52:08 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:36:18 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 19:13:07 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>>>>If you upgraded your CPU and operating system, but did not port your >>>>>>>precious programs as the world advanced past non standard programming >>>>>>>languages, that is your problem. >>>>>> >>>>>> I already wrote them and debugged them. Where did I agree to let >>>>>> Microsoft make work for me by constantly adapting to their whims of >>>>>> the day? >>>>> >>>>>If you upgraded your CPU and operating system, but did not port your >>>>>precious programs as the world advanced past non standard programming >>>>>languages, that is your problem. >>>> >>>> You already said that. Addressed above. >>> >>>Yep, but it doesn't seem to sink in. >> >> The reply doesn't seem to sink in. >> >>> >>>> >>>>>If you had used a language that adhered to a standard, you wouldn't >>>>>be having any problems with YOUR choice in doing upgrades. >>>> >>>> "The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose >>>> from." - Andrew_S._Tanenbaum >>>> >>>> QBASIC was written to a M$ Standard. They were good at doing that kind >>>> of thing; regardless of the standards valued elsewhere. >>> >>>Microsoft doesn't set standards. >> >> They have no internal standards? Really? > >You know what I meant; grow up. And you knew what I meant by "all machines," but that didn't stop you from being picky. In this case, people writing in QBASIC didn't give a rat's ass about external standards. >>>If you don't like their business model, don't buy their products then >>>whine about it. >>> >>>> It ran fine in a 16-bit environment. M$ abandonned 16-bit >>>> environments. >>> >>>As did everyone else in the world. >> >> Except those including the writers of DOSBox, VDOS, and DOSemu; and >> those who use them. > >Yep, big time sellers, those. > >How is the stock in those guys doing compared to Microsoft? Well, it deflates your "everyone else in the world" a bit, doesn't it? <snip> >>>>>>>>>> One feature of QBASIC that is at least rare in later languages: the >>>>>>>>>> "immediate mode" where the values of all variables known to the >>>>>>>>>> program at the point where an error happens in a program are available >>>>>>>>>> by accessing their values at the command line via the "print" command. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Nonsense; almost all modern programming languages have such a feature. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not as easily. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Bullshit, this is just more whinning. >>>>>> >>>>>> Apparently not: >>>>>> <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/24938527/can-php-cli-return-immediate-results-in-the-terminal-window> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>PHP is just one of many languages. I see you know nothing about debugging. >>>> >>>> I said "not as easily." My statement seems to be accurate. >>> >>>I guess for someone that is clueless debugging can be difficult. >> >> So you want people who were comfortable with QBASIC to install new >> software and learn debugging techniques for this "new and improved" >> software -- with no benefit to them other than to find a new way to do >> the same thing they could do before. > >Or they could go on using Windows 3, Windows 2000, Windows XP. You are changing the subject from "ease of debugging." >Or they could grow with the rest of the world. > >> That is not "progress." > >You don't seem to have much of a grasp on reality. Rewriting things for the sake of rewriting things is not "progress" in my world. YMMV. >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>>> You seem to be unwilling to recognize that M$ created problems for >>>>>> others. Why are you so resistant to recognizing that fact? >>>>> >>>>>Microsoft did not create any problems for anyone. >>>>> >>>>>Microsoft released new products which people choose to buy. >>>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>>> If they need to be installed with admin rights, they may not do do me >>>>>> any good if I need to run a compatible BASIC program *now*. >>>>> >>>>>Why would anyone need to run a decades old program in an obsolete >>>>>language "now"? >>>>> >>>>>Why would you not have admin rights unless the computer was not yours >>>>>and therefor not your toy to play with? >>>> >>>> Typical IT control-freak mindset: I know what everyone needs installed >>>> on the machine they use. If they need something else, they are >>>> playing. If they need it immediately, they should have been more >>>> clairvoyant and made arrangements for me to interrupt their work so I >>>> could "install" what they need. >>> >>>You have no more right to install software on someone else's computer >>>than you have to put up wallpaper in someone else's house. >>> >>>Good employees that see a way the company can be improved go to management >>>and make their pitch. >>> >>>Self righteous ass clowns that can't follow company SOP need to be >>>shown the exit door. >> >> If QBASIC was installed on the machine, it would safely run simple >> task-specific programs. > >Except there is no demand for QBASIC as is shown by the utter lack >of any real demand that Microsoft support it and the very little >interest in more modern versions of QBASIC that are available. Again missing the point. If one *has* a QBASIC program, or someone writes a simple one-off program for a specific purpose, it would run safely in a machine where QBASIC could run. Please try to focus. >You are tilting at windmills. > >>>>>>>> And I agree with Max that it was a convenient a way to pass simple >>>>>>>> programs around in a language that was a common denominator on all >>>>>>>> machines. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Qbasic was never standardized and has never run on "all machines" by >>>>>>>any stretch of the imagination. >>>>>> >>>>>> It was backward compatible and on all Windows machines. >>>>> >>>>>Backward compatible and stadardized are two different things. >>>> >>>> So what? Later versions of the BASIC installed on Windows machines >>>> were backward compatible, which is what users needed. They didn't care >>>> about standards. And standards change, which is another way things can >>>> become broken. >>> >>>Drooling gibberish. >> >> Unsubstantiated attempt to discredit. > >It is still gibberish. What is gibberish about WinXP machines being able to run QBASIC programs that were written on Win95 machines? >The standard for C has changed over the years yet even the earliest >C programs ever written can still be compiled today. Goody for C. We're talking about BASIC. >>>As there has been no popular outcry for Qbasic, it is obvious that >>>there are few to no people that need it. >>> >>>>>ANSI X3.60-1978 "For minimal BASIC" is a standard BASIC. >>>> >>>>>The world of "all machines" is more than Windows machines. >>>> >>>> Pickiness that is irrelevant to the context of the discussion, which >>>> was and is the ability of modern Windows versions to run 16-bit DOS >>>> programs; specificially, QBASIC. >>> >>>Nope, extremely relevant, but you haven't a clue what standards mean. Sometimes they mean jack shit to someone who wants to get something done in an environment for which they already have a working program. >> Which standard? How does it apply to the ease of runnig QBASIC in >> Win8? > >There is no standard QBASIC. There never has been a standard for QBASIC, >which is one of the reasons it became obsolete. Another reason is that M$ abandoned it. <snip> >>>>>> I have worked with people who have no interest or willingness to deal >>>>>> with any level of complexity in driving software. It doesn't interest >>>>>> them. It has come to interest me less because I have been there and >>>>>> done that. M$ making change for the sake of change just pisses me off >>>>>> now. >>>>> >>>>>Meaningless screed. >>>> >>>> Meaningless ... why? >>> >>>You are just ranting about what YOU think other people think. >> >> I have encountered these people. You apparently live in a bubble. > >Nope, I've always been in the professional world at the cutting edge >of technology. The last time I saw anyone in industry use BASIC for >anything was about 25 years ago and as soon as they got a compiler >the application was ported to FORTRAN. Why is industry the only meaningful environment? Are you making my point that the primary customer base for M$ is corporate IT departments; that home users are a tolerated annoyance only because 1) they can be a source of additional cash, and 2) they help the corporate IT departments stay customers if M$ throws enough bones to home users so they can run some of the same business software at home? >>>>>Microsoft changes things to address what Microsoft feels is the desires >>>>>of their customer base. >>>> >>>> Their customer base is now corporate IT departments, just like that of >>>> the former evil empire. Home computers get what can: >>>> 1. Be bolted onto the business versions >>>> 2. Further the interests of software developers who similarly dislike >>>> "personal computing." >>> >>>Childish nonsense. >> >> Actually, both are spot on. > >Actually both are childish nonsense. Actually, both are spot on. You have refuted neither with anything other than a sloppy attempt at derision. >>>> The failure to provide a 16-bit environment helped software developers >>>> who now had a "replacement" market for things that would have worked >>>> fine otherwise. >>> >>>Silly, childish nonsense. >> >> Again, spot on; just that you find it to be an inconvenient truth for >> some reason. See above; more of the same. >Nope, silly childish nonsense. > >> Are you a shill for M$? > >Are you 12 years old and mentally challenged? No, I am neither. Your turn: Are you a shill for M$? >>>Software developers use a standard language to help make their product >>>as widely usable as possible. >>> >>>Do you think Netscape is written in BASIC? Why would I care? >> People writing one-off programs for their own use or for sharing with >> a limited don't need to waste time on form over function. > >You mean hobbyists? Not necessarily. And so what if they are hobbyists? Why do you look down your nose at hobbyists? >>>>>>>No one held a gun to your head and forced you to abandon Windows 3 >>>>>>>or Windows XP; it was your choice. >>>>>> >>>>>> M$ dropping support and leaving XP in whatever level of brokenness and >>>>>> vulnerability it had when they decided to pull the plug wouldn't have >>>>>> had anything to do with it, would it? >>>>> >>>>>I have no idea why you are not still running Windows XP. >>>>> >>>>>I have software that would require major, i.e. cost a lot of money, to >>>>>upgrade to run on a later Microsoft OS, so I keep a machine running >>>>>Windows XP just to support it and will likely continue to do so for >>>>>years to come. >>>> >>>> By your own admission, the lack of backward compatibility after WinXP >>>> is causing you to maintain another computer setup, which has real >>>> estate requirements for a monitor, keyboard, and mouse. If a home user >>>> has the extra space, they should also have the computer networked for >>>> ease of access to the files needed by or created by the old software. >>> >>>It is a laptop, fool, and all the data files are on network attached >>>RAID storage. >> >> Which is what I said about having it networked. Your situation doesn't >> help the home user who has counter space for one computer. > >Oh grou up. > >I work out of a home office and there are eight computers here, including >two Solaris SPARC servers. Not everyone wants to accessorize their homes with computers. > >>>And no, it did not cause me to maintain another computer setup, it is >>>the same setup I have had from day 1. >>> >>>> In the minds of many, that qualifies as "M$ creating problems" for >>>> those who want to do all their work on one machine. >>> >>>There is no problem. >>> >>>The machine in question has one, and only one purpose; accounting. >> >> It is also networked. How nice for you. > >Eveyone is networked these days or computers would have little >home appeal. > >> Your solution doesn't help the home user with counter space for one >> computer. > >Oh grou up. > >I work out of a home office and there are eight computers here, including >two Solaris SPARC servers. Again, not everyone wants to accessorize their homes with computers. >>>It would be a little difficult for me to develop Unix and Linux >>>applications on a Windows laptop. Two words: Dual boot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-15 05:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1kj4kc-inh.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #539254 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 06:07:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 01:52:08 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:36:18 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 19:13:07 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>>>>>If you upgraded your CPU and operating system, but did not port your >>>>>>>>precious programs as the world advanced past non standard programming >>>>>>>>languages, that is your problem. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I already wrote them and debugged them. Where did I agree to let >>>>>>> Microsoft make work for me by constantly adapting to their whims of >>>>>>> the day? >>>>>> >>>>>>If you upgraded your CPU and operating system, but did not port your >>>>>>precious programs as the world advanced past non standard programming >>>>>>languages, that is your problem. >>>>> >>>>> You already said that. Addressed above. >>>> >>>>Yep, but it doesn't seem to sink in. >>> >>> The reply doesn't seem to sink in. >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>If you had used a language that adhered to a standard, you wouldn't >>>>>>be having any problems with YOUR choice in doing upgrades. >>>>> >>>>> "The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose >>>>> from." - Andrew_S._Tanenbaum >>>>> >>>>> QBASIC was written to a M$ Standard. They were good at doing that kind >>>>> of thing; regardless of the standards valued elsewhere. >>>> >>>>Microsoft doesn't set standards. >>> >>> They have no internal standards? Really? >> >>You know what I meant; grow up. > > And you knew what I meant by "all machines," but that didn't stop you > from being picky. > > In this case, people writing in QBASIC didn't give a rat's ass about > external standards. > > >>>>If you don't like their business model, don't buy their products then >>>>whine about it. >>>> >>>>> It ran fine in a 16-bit environment. M$ abandonned 16-bit >>>>> environments. >>>> >>>>As did everyone else in the world. >>> >>> Except those including the writers of DOSBox, VDOS, and DOSemu; and >>> those who use them. >> >>Yep, big time sellers, those. >> >>How is the stock in those guys doing compared to Microsoft? > > Well, it deflates your "everyone else in the world" a bit, doesn't it? > > > <snip> >>>>>>>>>>> One feature of QBASIC that is at least rare in later languages: the >>>>>>>>>>> "immediate mode" where the values of all variables known to the >>>>>>>>>>> program at the point where an error happens in a program are available >>>>>>>>>>> by accessing their values at the command line via the "print" command. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Nonsense; almost all modern programming languages have such a feature. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Not as easily. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Bullshit, this is just more whinning. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Apparently not: >>>>>>> <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/24938527/can-php-cli-return-immediate-results-in-the-terminal-window> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>PHP is just one of many languages. I see you know nothing about debugging. >>>>> >>>>> I said "not as easily." My statement seems to be accurate. >>>> >>>>I guess for someone that is clueless debugging can be difficult. >>> >>> So you want people who were comfortable with QBASIC to install new >>> software and learn debugging techniques for this "new and improved" >>> software -- with no benefit to them other than to find a new way to do >>> the same thing they could do before. >> >>Or they could go on using Windows 3, Windows 2000, Windows XP. > > You are changing the subject from "ease of debugging." > > >>Or they could grow with the rest of the world. >> >>> That is not "progress." >> >>You don't seem to have much of a grasp on reality. > > Rewriting things for the sake of rewriting things is not "progress" in > my world. YMMV. > >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>>>> You seem to be unwilling to recognize that M$ created problems for >>>>>>> others. Why are you so resistant to recognizing that fact? >>>>>> >>>>>>Microsoft did not create any problems for anyone. >>>>>> >>>>>>Microsoft released new products which people choose to buy. >>>>>> >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>>>> If they need to be installed with admin rights, they may not do do me >>>>>>> any good if I need to run a compatible BASIC program *now*. >>>>>> >>>>>>Why would anyone need to run a decades old program in an obsolete >>>>>>language "now"? >>>>>> >>>>>>Why would you not have admin rights unless the computer was not yours >>>>>>and therefor not your toy to play with? >>>>> >>>>> Typical IT control-freak mindset: I know what everyone needs installed >>>>> on the machine they use. If they need something else, they are >>>>> playing. If they need it immediately, they should have been more >>>>> clairvoyant and made arrangements for me to interrupt their work so I >>>>> could "install" what they need. >>>> >>>>You have no more right to install software on someone else's computer >>>>than you have to put up wallpaper in someone else's house. >>>> >>>>Good employees that see a way the company can be improved go to management >>>>and make their pitch. >>>> >>>>Self righteous ass clowns that can't follow company SOP need to be >>>>shown the exit door. >>> >>> If QBASIC was installed on the machine, it would safely run simple >>> task-specific programs. >> >>Except there is no demand for QBASIC as is shown by the utter lack >>of any real demand that Microsoft support it and the very little >>interest in more modern versions of QBASIC that are available. > > Again missing the point. If one *has* a QBASIC program, or someone > writes a simple one-off program for a specific purpose, it would run > safely in a machine where QBASIC could run. > > Please try to focus. > >>You are tilting at windmills. >> >>>>>>>>> And I agree with Max that it was a convenient a way to pass simple >>>>>>>>> programs around in a language that was a common denominator on all >>>>>>>>> machines. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Qbasic was never standardized and has never run on "all machines" by >>>>>>>>any stretch of the imagination. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It was backward compatible and on all Windows machines. >>>>>> >>>>>>Backward compatible and stadardized are two different things. >>>>> >>>>> So what? Later versions of the BASIC installed on Windows machines >>>>> were backward compatible, which is what users needed. They didn't care >>>>> about standards. And standards change, which is another way things can >>>>> become broken. >>>> >>>>Drooling gibberish. >>> >>> Unsubstantiated attempt to discredit. >> >>It is still gibberish. > > What is gibberish about WinXP machines being able to run QBASIC > programs that were written on Win95 machines? > >>The standard for C has changed over the years yet even the earliest >>C programs ever written can still be compiled today. > > Goody for C. We're talking about BASIC. > >>>>As there has been no popular outcry for Qbasic, it is obvious that >>>>there are few to no people that need it. >>>> >>>>>>ANSI X3.60-1978 "For minimal BASIC" is a standard BASIC. >>>>> >>>>>>The world of "all machines" is more than Windows machines. >>>>> >>>>> Pickiness that is irrelevant to the context of the discussion, which >>>>> was and is the ability of modern Windows versions to run 16-bit DOS >>>>> programs; specificially, QBASIC. >>>> >>>>Nope, extremely relevant, but you haven't a clue what standards mean. > > Sometimes they mean jack shit to someone who wants to get something > done in an environment for which they already have a working program. > >>> Which standard? How does it apply to the ease of runnig QBASIC in >>> Win8? >> >>There is no standard QBASIC. There never has been a standard for QBASIC, >>which is one of the reasons it became obsolete. > > Another reason is that M$ abandoned it. > > <snip> > >>>>>>> I have worked with people who have no interest or willingness to deal >>>>>>> with any level of complexity in driving software. It doesn't interest >>>>>>> them. It has come to interest me less because I have been there and >>>>>>> done that. M$ making change for the sake of change just pisses me off >>>>>>> now. >>>>>> >>>>>>Meaningless screed. >>>>> >>>>> Meaningless ... why? >>>> >>>>You are just ranting about what YOU think other people think. >>> >>> I have encountered these people. You apparently live in a bubble. >> >>Nope, I've always been in the professional world at the cutting edge >>of technology. The last time I saw anyone in industry use BASIC for >>anything was about 25 years ago and as soon as they got a compiler >>the application was ported to FORTRAN. > > Why is industry the only meaningful environment? > > Are you making my point that the primary customer base for M$ is > corporate IT departments; that home users are a tolerated annoyance > only because 1) they can be a source of additional cash, and 2) they > help the corporate IT departments stay customers if M$ throws enough > bones to home users so they can run some of the same business software > at home? > >>>>>>Microsoft changes things to address what Microsoft feels is the desires >>>>>>of their customer base. >>>>> >>>>> Their customer base is now corporate IT departments, just like that of >>>>> the former evil empire. Home computers get what can: >>>>> 1. Be bolted onto the business versions >>>>> 2. Further the interests of software developers who similarly dislike >>>>> "personal computing." >>>> >>>>Childish nonsense. >>> >>> Actually, both are spot on. >> >>Actually both are childish nonsense. > > Actually, both are spot on. > > You have refuted neither with anything other than a sloppy attempt at > derision. > >>>>> The failure to provide a 16-bit environment helped software developers >>>>> who now had a "replacement" market for things that would have worked >>>>> fine otherwise. >>>> >>>>Silly, childish nonsense. >>> >>> Again, spot on; just that you find it to be an inconvenient truth for >>> some reason. > > See above; more of the same. > > >>Nope, silly childish nonsense. >> >>> Are you a shill for M$? >> >>Are you 12 years old and mentally challenged? > > No, I am neither. > > Your turn: Are you a shill for M$? > >>>>Software developers use a standard language to help make their product >>>>as widely usable as possible. >>>> >>>>Do you think Netscape is written in BASIC? > > Why would I care? > >>> People writing one-off programs for their own use or for sharing with >>> a limited don't need to waste time on form over function. >> >>You mean hobbyists? > > Not necessarily. > > And so what if they are hobbyists? > > Why do you look down your nose at hobbyists? > >>>>>>>>No one held a gun to your head and forced you to abandon Windows 3 >>>>>>>>or Windows XP; it was your choice. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> M$ dropping support and leaving XP in whatever level of brokenness and >>>>>>> vulnerability it had when they decided to pull the plug wouldn't have >>>>>>> had anything to do with it, would it? >>>>>> >>>>>>I have no idea why you are not still running Windows XP. >>>>>> >>>>>>I have software that would require major, i.e. cost a lot of money, to >>>>>>upgrade to run on a later Microsoft OS, so I keep a machine running >>>>>>Windows XP just to support it and will likely continue to do so for >>>>>>years to come. >>>>> >>>>> By your own admission, the lack of backward compatibility after WinXP >>>>> is causing you to maintain another computer setup, which has real >>>>> estate requirements for a monitor, keyboard, and mouse. If a home user >>>>> has the extra space, they should also have the computer networked for >>>>> ease of access to the files needed by or created by the old software. >>>> >>>>It is a laptop, fool, and all the data files are on network attached >>>>RAID storage. >>> >>> Which is what I said about having it networked. Your situation doesn't >>> help the home user who has counter space for one computer. >> >>Oh grou up. >> >>I work out of a home office and there are eight computers here, including >>two Solaris SPARC servers. > > Not everyone wants to accessorize their homes with computers. > >> >>>>And no, it did not cause me to maintain another computer setup, it is >>>>the same setup I have had from day 1. >>>> >>>>> In the minds of many, that qualifies as "M$ creating problems" for >>>>> those who want to do all their work on one machine. >>>> >>>>There is no problem. >>>> >>>>The machine in question has one, and only one purpose; accounting. >>> >>> It is also networked. How nice for you. >> >>Eveyone is networked these days or computers would have little >>home appeal. >> >>> Your solution doesn't help the home user with counter space for one >>> computer. >> >>Oh grou up. >> >>I work out of a home office and there are eight computers here, including >>two Solaris SPARC servers. > > Again, not everyone wants to accessorize their homes with computers. > > >>>>It would be a little difficult for me to develop Unix and Linux >>>>applications on a Windows laptop. > > Two words: Dual boot. Two words: clueless idtiot. You have become boing and repetitive. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-15 06:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <4quv6bphcei99vmqru1mvrpiguuf64uila@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #539269 |
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 05:04:33 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >Two words: clueless idtiot. Is that an admission? >You have become boing and repetitive. You have seemed to be unreasonably obstinate in refusing to recognize that others might value something you don't or that people in what is practically a captive market might reasonably object to functionality being removed from a "new and improved" version of an OS. M$ was on a mission to kill DOS after it captured enough corporate IT departments. They actively tried to convince people that they shouldn't want DOS ... long before they actually succeeded removing all support for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-DOS When OS/2 was released in 1987, Microsoft began an advertising campaign announcing that "DOS is Dead" and stating that version 4 was the last full release. Well, there are people who still like DOS; and they are pissed at M$. Some of your spew resembles a greenie-style fanaticism: "the consensus" has ruled that DOS is dead; and dissenters are defective. You have tried to evade the question twice so far: Are you a shill for M$?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-15 13:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000526EF98AFD22C@aca44209.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #539298 |
Wally W. wrote: > On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 05:04:33 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>Two words: clueless idtiot. > > Is that an admission? > >>You have become boing and repetitive. > > You have seemed to be unreasonably obstinate in refusing to recognize > that others might value something you don't or that people in what is > practically a captive market might reasonably object to functionality > being removed from a "new and improved" version of an OS. It's not the OS which changed; it was the hardware which changed. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-15 08:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vs507btqqs1nekbm58k56auehbrpf1afod@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #539301 |
On 15 Dec 2015 13:06:19 GMT, jmfbahciv wrote: >Wally W. wrote: >> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 05:04:33 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>Two words: clueless idtiot. >> >> Is that an admission? >> >>>You have become boing and repetitive. >> >> You have seemed to be unreasonably obstinate in refusing to recognize >> that others might value something you don't or that people in what is >> practically a captive market might reasonably object to functionality >> being removed from a "new and improved" version of an OS. > >It's not the OS which changed; it was the hardware which changed. > >/BAH End users don't care what the hardware is or how it changed. DOSBox and VDOS found ways to run old DOS programs on a 64-bit machine. M$ probably has an emulator of their own, but they are not sharing when they ship gigabytes of their new OS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-15 19:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ck76kc-l5n.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #539320 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On 15 Dec 2015 13:06:19 GMT, jmfbahciv wrote: > >>Wally W. wrote: >>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 05:04:33 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>Two words: clueless idtiot. >>> >>> Is that an admission? >>> >>>>You have become boing and repetitive. >>> >>> You have seemed to be unreasonably obstinate in refusing to recognize >>> that others might value something you don't or that people in what is >>> practically a captive market might reasonably object to functionality >>> being removed from a "new and improved" version of an OS. >> >>It's not the OS which changed; it was the hardware which changed. >> >>/BAH > > End users don't care what the hardware is or how it changed. > > DOSBox and VDOS found ways to run old DOS programs on a 64-bit > machine. Good for them; then use their products and quit whinning that Microsoft made the business decision that there were not enough sales for such for them to profitably continue support for such. > M$ probably has an emulator of their own, but they are not sharing > when they ship gigabytes of their new OS. Microsoft exists to make money, not to "share" things. If you want sharing, that is what the open source world is all about. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-15 19:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oc76kc-l5n.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #539298 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 05:04:33 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>Two words: clueless idtiot. > > Is that an admission? > >>You have become boing and repetitive. > > You have seemed to be unreasonably obstinate in refusing to recognize > that others might value something you don't or that people in what is > practically a captive market might reasonably object to functionality > being removed from a "new and improved" version of an OS. You seem to be tilting at windmills. It has been pointed out many, many times that there are several ways to support your obsolete Qbasic programs, but you refuse to use them. The market base for people that want or even need for some obscure reason such support is much too small for Microsoft to bother with as a money making business. That you can not accept such a reality is your problem. > M$ was on a mission to kill DOS after it captured enough corporate IT > departments. They actively tried to convince people that they > shouldn't want DOS ... long before they actually succeeded removing > all support for it: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-DOS > When OS/2 was released in 1987, Microsoft began an advertising > campaign announcing that "DOS is Dead" and stating that version 4 was > the last full release. DOS died because the vast majority of people wanted graphical operating systems. > Well, there are people who still like DOS; and they are pissed at M$. There are people who still like the 55 Chevy. Don't expect GM to start making them again. > Some of your spew resembles a greenie-style fanaticism: "the > consensus" has ruled that DOS is dead; and dissenters are defective. The majority of people prefer graphical operating systems and a company in business to make money will focus on what the majority of customers desire. Microsoft is NOT your personal servant. If you think there is such a huge desire for DOS, start your own company selling something that looks like DOS and runs on modern hardware. I'm sure you company will be in the Fortune 500 in no time. > You have tried to evade the question twice so far: Are you a shill for > M$? Idiot. Personally I intensely disliked every operating system Microsoft ever produced and only used them to run applications that can only be run on a Microsoft OS. When using a computer, it is the applications that are important to me, NOT the OS. In the near future I will be buying an iPad because there is an application I very much want to run that only runs on the iPad. For development my preferred OS is Solaris Unix on hardware that has at least 4, and preferably, 8 or more CPUs. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-15 22:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <63l17bppnl7jicdnk439uq2625ldkdk204@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #539424 |
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:48:08 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 05:04:33 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>Two words: clueless idtiot. >> >> Is that an admission? >> >>>You have become boing and repetitive. >> >> You have seemed to be unreasonably obstinate in refusing to recognize >> that others might value something you don't or that people in what is >> practically a captive market might reasonably object to functionality >> being removed from a "new and improved" version of an OS. > >You seem to be tilting at windmills. I agree with Max: M$ stopped supporting something useful to him; and to me. >It has been pointed out many, many times that there are several ways >to support your obsolete Qbasic programs, but you refuse to use them. Not as easy as it was to call up a DVM box in WinXP. >The market base for people that want or even need for some obscure >reason such support is much too small for Microsoft to bother with >as a money making business. > >That you can not accept such a reality is your problem. I find workarounds. When I have to use one, I get pissed. You want victims to "lay back and enjoy it." >> M$ was on a mission to kill DOS after it captured enough corporate IT >> departments. They actively tried to convince people that they >> shouldn't want DOS ... long before they actually succeeded removing >> all support for it: >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-DOS >> When OS/2 was released in 1987, Microsoft began an advertising >> campaign announcing that "DOS is Dead" and stating that version 4 was >> the last full release. > >DOS died because the vast majority of people wanted graphical operating >systems. It wasn't an either-or choice: Win3 and Win9x ran on top of DOS. >> Well, there are people who still like DOS; and they are pissed at M$. > >There are people who still like the 55 Chevy. Don't expect GM to >start making them again. > >> Some of your spew resembles a greenie-style fanaticism: "the >> consensus" has ruled that DOS is dead; and dissenters are defective. > >The majority of people prefer graphical operating systems and a >company in business to make money will focus on what the majority >of customers desire. > >Microsoft is NOT your personal servant. And I am not their compliant, uncomplaining victim. For every one that complains, several silently decide M$ can go pound sand. Linux is where I will be. >If you think there is such a huge desire for DOS, start your own >company selling something that looks like DOS and runs on modern >hardware. > >I'm sure you company will be in the Fortune 500 in no time. > >> You have tried to evade the question twice so far: Are you a shill for >> M$? > >Idiot. > >Personally I intensely disliked every operating system Microsoft >ever produced and only used them to run applications that can only >be run on a Microsoft OS. > >When using a computer, it is the applications that are important to >me, NOT the OS. > >In the near future I will be buying an iPad because there is an >application I very much want to run that only runs on the iPad. > >For development my preferred OS is Solaris Unix on hardware that >has at least 4, and preferably, 8 or more CPUs. Oh, you are so macho.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 03:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6937kc-drp.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #539515 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:48:08 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 05:04:33 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>Two words: clueless idtiot. >>> >>> Is that an admission? >>> >>>>You have become boing and repetitive. >>> >>> You have seemed to be unreasonably obstinate in refusing to recognize >>> that others might value something you don't or that people in what is >>> practically a captive market might reasonably object to functionality >>> being removed from a "new and improved" version of an OS. >> >>You seem to be tilting at windmills. > > I agree with Max: M$ stopped supporting something useful to him; and > to me. So what? I want a 57 Chevy but GM won't make me one. >>It has been pointed out many, many times that there are several ways >>to support your obsolete Qbasic programs, but you refuse to use them. > > Not as easy as it was to call up a DVM box in WinXP. So what? Microsoft isn't in business to make life easy for the users of Qbasic. >>The market base for people that want or even need for some obscure >>reason such support is much too small for Microsoft to bother with >>as a money making business. >> >>That you can not accept such a reality is your problem. > > I find workarounds. When I have to use one, I get pissed. Sounds like a personal issue to me. > You want victims to "lay back and enjoy it." You sound like a professional victim. >>> M$ was on a mission to kill DOS after it captured enough corporate IT >>> departments. They actively tried to convince people that they >>> shouldn't want DOS ... long before they actually succeeded removing >>> all support for it: >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-DOS >>> When OS/2 was released in 1987, Microsoft began an advertising >>> campaign announcing that "DOS is Dead" and stating that version 4 was >>> the last full release. >> >>DOS died because the vast majority of people wanted graphical operating >>systems. > > It wasn't an either-or choice: Win3 and Win9x ran on top of DOS. And to make a better graphical operating system Microsoft dumped DOS. Get over it. >>> Well, there are people who still like DOS; and they are pissed at M$. >> >>There are people who still like the 55 Chevy. Don't expect GM to >>start making them again. >> >>> Some of your spew resembles a greenie-style fanaticism: "the >>> consensus" has ruled that DOS is dead; and dissenters are defective. >> >>The majority of people prefer graphical operating systems and a >>company in business to make money will focus on what the majority >>of customers desire. >> >>Microsoft is NOT your personal servant. > > And I am not their compliant, uncomplaining victim. You have done nothing BUT complain and whine. > For every one that complains, several silently decide M$ can go pound > sand. I'm sure that has Microsoft in fear of imminent bankruptcy. > Linux is where I will be. Goody for you. I'm sure that has Microsoft in fear of imminent bankruptcy. >>If you think there is such a huge desire for DOS, start your own >>company selling something that looks like DOS and runs on modern >>hardware. >> >>I'm sure you company will be in the Fortune 500 in no time. >> >>> You have tried to evade the question twice so far: Are you a shill for >>> M$? >> >>Idiot. >> >>Personally I intensely disliked every operating system Microsoft >>ever produced and only used them to run applications that can only >>be run on a Microsoft OS. >> >>When using a computer, it is the applications that are important to >>me, NOT the OS. >> >>In the near future I will be buying an iPad because there is an >>application I very much want to run that only runs on the iPad. >> >>For development my preferred OS is Solaris Unix on hardware that >>has at least 4, and preferably, 8 or more CPUs. > > Oh, you are so macho. Nope, realistic though I highly doubt you have a clue what a parallel build is. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 20:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n4kjkf$4ft$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #538900 |
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> M$ took something away for reasons that are not important to me. > > Microsoft didn't take anything away, the offered a new product and you > obviously bought the new product. > No one held a gun to your head and forced you to abandon Windows 3 or > Windows XP; it was your choice. You are deluded, not understanding computers, same way you are understanding Physics. He just need to use a virtual machine and run whatever he wants to run. This is the correct answer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 20:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0h01kc-m36.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #538906 |
In sci.physics Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> wrote: > ( ͡° ?ʖ ͡°)? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>> M$ took something away for reasons that are not important to me. >> >> Microsoft didn't take anything away, the offered a new product and you >> obviously bought the new product. >> No one held a gun to your head and forced you to abandon Windows 3 or >> Windows XP; it was your choice. > > You are deluded, not understanding computers, same way you are > understanding Physics. He just need to use a virtual machine and run > whatever he wants to run. This is the correct answer. Idiot. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 20:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n4kkuk$8bo$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #538915 |
(°ʖ°) jimp wrote: >>>> M$ took something away for reasons that are not important to me. >>> >>> Microsoft didn't take anything away, the offered a new product and you >>> obviously bought the new product. >>> No one held a gun to your head and forced you to abandon Windows 3 or >>> Windows XP; it was your choice. >> >> You are deluded, not understanding computers, same way you are >> understanding Physics. He just need to use a virtual machine and run >> whatever he wants to run. This is the correct answer. > > Idiot. You don't even know what a virtual box in computing is. Exactly supporting my previous statement. Your laboratory experience in Physics is close to the very absolute zero Kelvin.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 21:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <j831kc-cb6.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #538918 |
In sci.physics Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> wrote: > (°ʖ°) jimp wrote: > >>>>> M$ took something away for reasons that are not important to me. >>>> >>>> Microsoft didn't take anything away, the offered a new product and you >>>> obviously bought the new product. >>>> No one held a gun to your head and forced you to abandon Windows 3 or >>>> Windows XP; it was your choice. >>> >>> You are deluded, not understanding computers, same way you are >>> understanding Physics. He just need to use a virtual machine and run >>> whatever he wants to run. This is the correct answer. >> >> Idiot. > > You don't even know what a virtual box in computing is. Exactly supporting > my previous statement. Your laboratory experience in Physics is close to > the very absolute zero Kelvin. Still an idiot. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-15 02:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6fa9abf4-8f8b-412c-98d0-51e81e9f5dc9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #538762 |
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com > Max Keon <msk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: --- --- >> If a gold nugget is swept into a corner the memory of it will >> fade until one day someone stumbles across it and brushes the >> dust off it. Its value hasn't diminished. >> >> I'm brushing the dust off Qbasic. > > Qbasic is hardly a gold nugget into a corner, more like a hair > ball hacked up by the cat. Or laid by a goose that lays golden eggs. >> Of all the available options, Qbasic is the perfect introduction >> to programming. That's obviously why it was developed. It also >> offers a simple and understandable means of communicating via >> maths or math based graphics. Programs are run directly from >> text, so they can be copied from anywhere without fear of virus >> contamination. > > Utter nonsense. > > It was developed as an attempt provide an introduction to programming > when the only computers average people could access were 8 bit and > better languages had not yet been developed. ??? What version of Qbasic are you referring to? 8 bit computers?? The Qbasic I'm using came from DOS 6, which handled the first version of Windows (Windows 3.11) and that was somewhere around 1994. 8 bit computers popped up in the early 80's. I still have a Programmers Reference Guide for a Commodore Vic20 dated May 1983. GW Basic preceded Qbasic and that wouldn't run as 8 bit either. >> The alternative is to use other programming options where the >> programs can be written using any text editor. In this case the >> text program must first be compiled into an exe file before the >> consequences can be realized. The options here are to download >> the exe file from an internet source, or to copy the text program >> off a screen (if it's made available) and then compile it into an >> exe file using the relevant programming software, if you happen >> to have the correct software package. This option is of course >> not practical. But neither is the carefree downloading of exe >> files across the internet. > > Utter nonsesense. > > There are still may interpreted languages. Were they ever included in any operating system software package? Are they ever likely to be? Qbasic certainly has a head start. >> Try downloading these FreeBasic compiled exe files, if you're >> feeling lucky. >> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/test4a.html >> Example (2) is the most interesting. It demonstrates that what >> we directly observe in nature is not reality. The number of steps >> involved in sending each beam from the light source to the >> mirrors and back is very clear. In the screen frame the time >> length of each step will be constant regardless of the speed of >> the relatively moving frame. It's blatantly obvious that the >> relatively moving frame length is not going to change just >> because it's moving. But unless it contracts according to >> measurements taken in the screen frame, the results won't comply >> with observation. Involking some kind of mystical length >> contraction is certainly not the answer though. > > This is just a hug pile of arm waving. In my paragraph above, apart from a spelling error, all I can see is a description of a physical process that can't be denied. Did you actually download and run the .exe file, or are YOU simply arm waving? Or perhaps you're only referring to length contraction? If you happened to run Example (1) as well, you would have been left in a bewildered state because you would have no idea what it was all about. It shows Mercury's orbit decay caused by a proposed anisotropy in the gravity force that's generated by Mercury's radial velocity relative to the Sun. But you would still have no idea how it was derived. That would not be the case if you had copied the Qbasic text program off this screen and pasted it into Qbasic. It would all be clearly laid out in front of you. And the program is run by simply pressing the function key F5. What more could anyone ask for? --- --- ----- Max Keon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-15 20:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p886kc-l5n.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #539295 |
Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com >> Max Keon <msk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > --- > --- >>> If a gold nugget is swept into a corner the memory of it will >>> fade until one day someone stumbles across it and brushes the >>> dust off it. Its value hasn't diminished. >>> >>> I'm brushing the dust off Qbasic. >> >> Qbasic is hardly a gold nugget into a corner, more like a hair >> ball hacked up by the cat. > > Or laid by a goose that lays golden eggs. Well, it certainly came out of somethings ass. >>> Of all the available options, Qbasic is the perfect introduction >>> to programming. That's obviously why it was developed. It also >>> offers a simple and understandable means of communicating via >>> maths or math based graphics. Programs are run directly from >>> text, so they can be copied from anywhere without fear of virus >>> contamination. >> >> Utter nonsense. >> >> It was developed as an attempt provide an introduction to programming >> when the only computers average people could access were 8 bit and >> better languages had not yet been developed. > > ??? What version of Qbasic are you referring to? 8 bit computers?? > The Qbasic I'm using came from DOS 6, which handled the first > version of Windows (Windows 3.11) and that was somewhere around > 1994. 8 bit computers popped up in the early 80's. I still have a > Programmers Reference Guide for a Commodore Vic20 dated May 1983. > GW Basic preceded Qbasic and that wouldn't run as 8 bit either. BASIC in general. Do try to keep up, though I know the original poster is all over the place. >>> The alternative is to use other programming options where the >>> programs can be written using any text editor. In this case the >>> text program must first be compiled into an exe file before the >>> consequences can be realized. The options here are to download >>> the exe file from an internet source, or to copy the text program >>> off a screen (if it's made available) and then compile it into an >>> exe file using the relevant programming software, if you happen >>> to have the correct software package. This option is of course >>> not practical. But neither is the carefree downloading of exe >>> files across the internet. >> >> Utter nonsesense. >> >> There are still may interpreted languages. > > Were they ever included in any operating system software package? > Are they ever likely to be? Qbasic certainly has a head start. That depends on which operating system you are talking about. Microsoft operating systems target users that run applications, not software developers, and other than the BASIC of very early distributions do not contain any programming tools for developers of any kind. Microsoft development tools were always separate packages you added after getting Windows. Other OS's are a different story. >>> Try downloading these FreeBasic compiled exe files, if you're >>> feeling lucky. >>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/test4a.html >>> Example (2) is the most interesting. It demonstrates that what >>> we directly observe in nature is not reality. The number of steps >>> involved in sending each beam from the light source to the >>> mirrors and back is very clear. In the screen frame the time >>> length of each step will be constant regardless of the speed of >>> the relatively moving frame. It's blatantly obvious that the >>> relatively moving frame length is not going to change just >>> because it's moving. But unless it contracts according to >>> measurements taken in the screen frame, the results won't comply >>> with observation. Involking some kind of mystical length >>> contraction is certainly not the answer though. >> >> This is just a hug pile of arm waving. > > In my paragraph above, apart from a spelling error, all I can see > is a description of a physical process that can't be denied. Did > you actually download and run the .exe file, or are YOU simply > arm waving? Or perhaps you're only referring to length > contraction? I am NOT going to download and run a .exe file. > If you happened to run Example (1) as well, you would have been > left in a bewildered state because you would have no idea what > it was all about. It shows Mercury's orbit decay caused by a > proposed anisotropy in the gravity force that's generated by > Mercury's radial velocity relative to the Sun. But you would > still have no idea how it was derived. Again, I am NOT going to download and run a .exe file. > That would not be the case if you had copied the Qbasic text > program off this screen and pasted it into Qbasic. It would all > be clearly laid out in front of you. And the program is run by > simply pressing the function key F5. Again, I am NOT going to download and run a .exe file. > What more could anyone ask for? Source code I can examine for malicious code. > > ----- > > Max Keon > -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-26 15:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005257326824AF3@aca20239.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #535478 |
Max Keon wrote: > ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> Max Keon <msk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: <snip> > It quickly became clear to me that I would always be a puppet of > the O/S programmers. These folk would become supreme beings who > would share their brilliance with the world at a cost, and that > is completely understandable. You have a very, very strange notion w.r.t. OS developers. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web