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 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-15 19:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pd66kc-lvm.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #539302 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 02:37:12 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>> Jim, the guy doesn't know what "16-bit" means. >>> >>> /BAH >> >> I would agree with that. >> >> He seems to think that it is the just OS that is preventing him from running >> binaries which were generated for the 8086 instruction set. >> >> While the early CPU's, e.g. the 80186, 80286, 80386 and 80486 did have full >> backward binary compatibility with the 8086, current processors have > limited, >> at best, 8086 compatibility and some newer chips do not have it at all. >> >> So if Microsoft for some bizarre reason wanted to support 8086 code, they >> would have to provide a virtual machine to ensure it would run with all >> modern CPU's. >> >> And the market base for this would appear to be just two guys. > > Not really. There are more people who legitimately need the "old" > hardware support; think data and apps with lost sources. They run an > emulator. > > /BAH Well, maybe not just two guys, but the market base is very small. I've seen a PDP-11 emulator to run RT-11 based stuff on PC hardware to support ancient embedded control systems. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-14 22:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <351v6b5i8qsla56efnpj4f6gntt7fhsn5v@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #539075 |
On 14 Dec 2015 15:12:03 GMT, jmfbahciv wrote: >jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 02:37:12 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > ><snip> > >Jim, the guy doesn't know what "16-bit" means. > >/BAH Complain to M$. The title bar of the error message when trying to run a DOS program from the command prompt in Win7 says, "Unsupported 16-Bit Application."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-15 03:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <3ue4kc-2ah.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #539251 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On 14 Dec 2015 15:12:03 GMT, jmfbahciv wrote: > >>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 02:37:12 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >><snip> >> >>Jim, the guy doesn't know what "16-bit" means. >> >>/BAH > > Complain to M$. Why? > The title bar of the error message when trying to run a DOS program > from the command prompt in Win7 says, "Unsupported 16-Bit > Application." As one would expect. I suppose you complain to the car maker when the engine stops running and the gas gauge is pointing to 'E'. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-14 23:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <p84v6bp1chrgv6p05e9u02tcg6m7fprjcr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #539257 |
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:44:35 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> On 14 Dec 2015 15:12:03 GMT, jmfbahciv wrote: >> >>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 02:37:12 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>Jim, the guy doesn't know what "16-bit" means. >>> >>>/BAH >> >> Complain to M$. > >Why? > >> The title bar of the error message when trying to run a DOS program >> from the command prompt in Win7 says, "Unsupported 16-Bit >> Application." > >As one would expect. > >I suppose you complain to the car maker when the engine stops running >and the gas gauge is pointing to 'E'. So jmfbahciv's attempted swipe was relevant ... how?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-15 05:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7ej4kc-inh.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #539259 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:44:35 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>> On 14 Dec 2015 15:12:03 GMT, jmfbahciv wrote: >>> >>>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 02:37:12 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>><snip> >>>> >>>>Jim, the guy doesn't know what "16-bit" means. >>>> >>>>/BAH >>> >>> Complain to M$. >> >>Why? >> >>> The title bar of the error message when trying to run a DOS program >>> from the command prompt in Win7 says, "Unsupported 16-Bit >>> Application." >> >>As one would expect. >> >>I suppose you complain to the car maker when the engine stops running >>and the gas gauge is pointing to 'E'. > > So jmfbahciv's attempted swipe was relevant ... how? You are clueless. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-15 06:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <veuv6blqbkes84eohngn5psnl9kvg105v1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #539268 |
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 05:01:27 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:44:35 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>> On 14 Dec 2015 15:12:03 GMT, jmfbahciv wrote: >>>> >>>>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 02:37:12 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>><snip> >>>>> >>>>>Jim, the guy doesn't know what "16-bit" means. >>>>> >>>>>/BAH >>>> >>>> Complain to M$. >>> >>>Why? >>> >>>> The title bar of the error message when trying to run a DOS program >>>> from the command prompt in Win7 says, "Unsupported 16-Bit >>>> Application." >>> >>>As one would expect. >>> >>>I suppose you complain to the car maker when the engine stops running >>>and the gas gauge is pointing to 'E'. >> >> So jmfbahciv's attempted swipe was relevant ... how? > >You are clueless. Verifiably false. You tried to pile on *after* it was pointed out that jmfbahciv was contradicted by your beloved M$. There are labels for that behavior.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-12 02:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3b93df71-37f2-4f7a-a8f1-a3771d0ff4b6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #537249 |
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com > Max Keon <msk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com >>> Max Keon <msk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: --- --- >>>>> For elementry instruction, it is trivial to restrict usage of >>>>> features to just those available in Qbasic. >>>>> >>>>> Just because a language has features above and beyond Qbasic does >>>>> NOT mean you have to use them in an introductory lesson. >>>> >>>> Complex software isn't going to be donated at zero cost, and it >>>> needs to be freely included in every O/S software package. It's >>>> also essential that it be relevant for the required level of >>>> expertise. Anyone unfamiliar with computer programming isn't >>>> going to be capable of deciphering which of a myriad of >>>> programming options is relevant for them. >>>> >>>> **That should be blatantly obvious.** >>> >>> Almost all versions of Linux, just about all compilers, LibreOffice, >>> OpenOffice, Qucs, Firefox, MySQL and many, many others are complex >>> softeware and they are all free. >>> >>> As for "Anyone unfamiliar with computer programming", that is what >>> the series of books titled xxx For Dummies is for. >> >> Very few people would go down that road if Qbasic was installed >> on every computer and promoted as an introduction to computer >> programming. I found it very interesting writing simple programs >> for my Vic20, but I had no interest in reading such books. If I >> couldn't do it the way I did it I wouldn't have bothered wasting >> my time. > > Very few people would use Qbasic as is shown by the utter lack of > popular demand for it. 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. 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. 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. 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. But enough of that stuff. Because the zip file containing Qbasic.exe and Qbasic.hlp is less than 200k bytes, even if it's not included in operating systems it can be downloaded in seconds. But there's not much point if it's not supported by the O/S software. That's the part that needs to be addressed. --- snip cyclic argument --- ----- Max Keon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-12 19:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sh8ujc-s4q.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #538741 |
Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com >> Max Keon <msk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com >>>> Max Keon <msk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > --- > --- >>>>>> For elementry instruction, it is trivial to restrict usage of >>>>>> features to just those available in Qbasic. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just because a language has features above and beyond Qbasic does >>>>>> NOT mean you have to use them in an introductory lesson. >>>>> >>>>> Complex software isn't going to be donated at zero cost, and it >>>>> needs to be freely included in every O/S software package. It's >>>>> also essential that it be relevant for the required level of >>>>> expertise. Anyone unfamiliar with computer programming isn't >>>>> going to be capable of deciphering which of a myriad of >>>>> programming options is relevant for them. >>>>> >>>>> **That should be blatantly obvious.** >>>> >>>> Almost all versions of Linux, just about all compilers, LibreOffice, >>>> OpenOffice, Qucs, Firefox, MySQL and many, many others are complex >>>> softeware and they are all free. >>>> >>>> As for "Anyone unfamiliar with computer programming", that is what >>>> the series of books titled xxx For Dummies is for. >>> >>> Very few people would go down that road if Qbasic was installed >>> on every computer and promoted as an introduction to computer >>> programming. I found it very interesting writing simple programs >>> for my Vic20, but I had no interest in reading such books. If I >>> couldn't do it the way I did it I wouldn't have bothered wasting >>> my time. >> >> Very few people would use Qbasic as is shown by the utter lack of >> popular demand for it. > > 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. > 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. > 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. > 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. > But enough of that stuff. I certainly hope so, you are boring the hell out of me with your puerile tripe. > Because the zip file containing Qbasic.exe and Qbasic.hlp is less > than 200k bytes, even if it's not included in operating systems > it can be downloaded in seconds. But there's not much point if > it's not supported by the O/S software. That's the part that > needs to be addressed. No, the thing that needs to be addressed is your obsession with an obsolete programming language that has been dead for decades. If you think Qbasic is so great, why don't YOU update it to run in a modern version of Windows and provide it for free? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 00:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <4b1q6bd9kkoph56cgsvdurr25bqb10kls4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #538762 |
On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:18:52 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote: <snip> >> Because the zip file containing Qbasic.exe and Qbasic.hlp is less >> than 200k bytes, even if it's not included in operating systems >> it can be downloaded in seconds. But there's not much point if >> it's not supported by the O/S software. That's the part that >> needs to be addressed. > >No, the thing that needs to be addressed is your obsession with an >obsolete programming language that has been dead for decades. That is exactly the point. M$ discouraged the use of 16-bit software to the benefit of those who write newer software, not necessarily to the benefit of the end users. >If you think Qbasic is so great, why don't YOU update it to run in >a modern version of Windows and provide it for free? Will M$ release the source code for that purpose? 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. Why are you defending M$'s breakage of things that worked fine in WinXP?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 06:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ejevjc-bm.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #538842 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:18:52 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > <snip> > >>> Because the zip file containing Qbasic.exe and Qbasic.hlp is less >>> than 200k bytes, even if it's not included in operating systems >>> it can be downloaded in seconds. But there's not much point if >>> it's not supported by the O/S software. That's the part that >>> needs to be addressed. >> >>No, the thing that needs to be addressed is your obsession with an >>obsolete programming language that has been dead for decades. > > That is exactly the point. M$ discouraged the use of 16-bit software > to the benefit of those who write newer software, not necessarily to > the benefit of the end users. 16-bit versus any other number of bits has nothing to do with it. Programming languages are in general CPU number of bits agnostic. >>If you think Qbasic is so great, why don't YOU update it to run in >>a modern version of Windows and provide it for free? > > Will M$ release the source code for that purpose? I have nothing to do with it; why don't you ask them? > 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. > Why are you defending M$'s breakage of things that worked fine in > WinXP? why are you obsessed about a crippled programming language that has been obsolete for decades? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 03:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <al9q6bpn8eesf3tslgnmhd8io1iogd6ahl@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #538852 |
On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 06:08:14 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:18:52 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> <snip> >> >>>> Because the zip file containing Qbasic.exe and Qbasic.hlp is less >>>> than 200k bytes, even if it's not included in operating systems >>>> it can be downloaded in seconds. But there's not much point if >>>> it's not supported by the O/S software. That's the part that >>>> needs to be addressed. >>> >>>No, the thing that needs to be addressed is your obsession with an >>>obsolete programming language that has been dead for decades. >> >> That is exactly the point. M$ discouraged the use of 16-bit software >> to the benefit of those who write newer software, not necessarily to >> the benefit of the end users. > >16-bit versus any other number of bits has nothing to do with it. Sure it does. M$ made it more difficult to run 16-bit programs in any of their versions after WinXP. >Programming languages are in general CPU number of bits agnostic. > >>>If you think Qbasic is so great, why don't YOU update it to run in >>>a modern version of Windows and provide it for free? >> >> Will M$ release the source code for that purpose? > >I have nothing to do with it; why don't you ask them? Maybe you should have checked that before you suggested that someone update it. >> 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. >> Why are you defending M$'s breakage of things that worked fine in >> WinXP? You didn't answer the question. >why are you obsessed about a crippled programming language that has >been obsolete for decades? I am not obsessed with it. I recognize there is value in having access to something that can use programs written long ago without *any* modifiction. And I agree with Max that it was a convenient a way to pass simple programs around in a language that was a common denominator on all machines. M$ took something away for reasons that are not important to me. They screwed the pooch with Win 10.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 19:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <3js0kc-tn5.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #538856 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 06:08:14 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:18:52 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>> <snip> >>> >>>>> Because the zip file containing Qbasic.exe and Qbasic.hlp is less >>>>> than 200k bytes, even if it's not included in operating systems >>>>> it can be downloaded in seconds. But there's not much point if >>>>> it's not supported by the O/S software. That's the part that >>>>> needs to be addressed. >>>> >>>>No, the thing that needs to be addressed is your obsession with an >>>>obsolete programming language that has been dead for decades. >>> >>> That is exactly the point. M$ discouraged the use of 16-bit software >>> to the benefit of those who write newer software, not necessarily to >>> the benefit of the end users. >> >>16-bit versus any other number of bits has nothing to do with it. > > Sure it does. M$ made it more difficult to run 16-bit programs in any > of their versions after WinXP. As microprocessors went from 8 to 64 bit, ALL the operating system vendors adjusted accordingly. 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. But since there are several independant versions of Qbasic that work with a modern version of Windows and are freely available, this is just whinning on your part. >>Programming languages are in general CPU number of bits agnostic. >> >>>>If you think Qbasic is so great, why don't YOU update it to run in >>>>a modern version of Windows and provide it for free? >>> >>> Will M$ release the source code for that purpose? >> >>I have nothing to do with it; why don't you ask them? > > Maybe you should have checked that before you suggested that someone > update it. Maybe you should use one of the many independant versions of Qbasic that work with a modern version of Windows and are freely available and quite your whinning. >>> 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. >>> Why are you defending M$'s breakage of things that worked fine in >>> WinXP? > > You didn't answer the question. You have no question, just constant whinning. >>why are you obsessed about a crippled programming language that has >>been obsolete for decades? > > I am not obsessed with it. I recognize there is value in having access > to something that can use programs written long ago without *any* > modifiction. You do have access to several independant versions of Qbasic that work with a modern version of Windows and are freely available, but you chose to whin that Microsoft doesn't provide them instead of using any of them. > And I agree with Max that it was a convenient a way to pass simple > programs around in a language that was a common denominator on all > machines. Qbasic was never standardized and has never run on "all machines" by any stretch of the imagination. Passing programs around, no matter how simple or complex, is trivial these days. > M$ 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. > They screwed the pooch with Win 10. See above, whinner. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 14:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0chr6b5vipo3bj11ii9c74g8o90ni28c0t@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #538900 |
On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 19:13:07 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 06:08:14 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:18:52 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>>> Because the zip file containing Qbasic.exe and Qbasic.hlp is less >>>>>> than 200k bytes, even if it's not included in operating systems >>>>>> it can be downloaded in seconds. But there's not much point if >>>>>> it's not supported by the O/S software. That's the part that >>>>>> needs to be addressed. >>>>> >>>>>No, the thing that needs to be addressed is your obsession with an >>>>>obsolete programming language that has been dead for decades. >>>> >>>> That is exactly the point. M$ discouraged the use of 16-bit software >>>> to the benefit of those who write newer software, not necessarily to >>>> the benefit of the end users. >>> >>>16-bit versus any other number of bits has nothing to do with it. >> >> Sure it does. M$ made it more difficult to run 16-bit programs in any >> of their versions after WinXP. > >As microprocessors went from 8 to 64 bit, ALL the operating system >vendors adjusted accordingly. > >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? >But since there are several independant versions of Qbasic that work >with a modern version of Windows and are freely available, this is >just whinning on your part. > >>>Programming languages are in general CPU number of bits agnostic. >>> >>>>>If you think Qbasic is so great, why don't YOU update it to run in >>>>>a modern version of Windows and provide it for free? >>>> >>>> Will M$ release the source code for that purpose? >>> >>>I have nothing to do with it; why don't you ask them? >> >> Maybe you should have checked that before you suggested that someone >> update it. > >Maybe you should use one of the many independant versions of Qbasic >that work with a modern version of Windows and are freely available >and quite your whinning. My issue is not so much with QBASIC, but the experience with QBASIC is a symptom: M$ abandoned support for 16-bit programs. QBASIC is only one example of the problem. If M$ hadn't broken the ability to run 16-bit programs, we wouldn't be having this conversation. >>>> 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> >>>> Why are you defending M$'s breakage of things that worked fine in >>>> WinXP? >> >> You didn't answer the question. > >You have no question, just constant whinning. I asked: "Why are you defending M$'s breakage of things that worked fine in WinXP?" You seem to be unwilling to recognize that M$ created problems for others. Why are you so resistant to recognizing that fact? >>>why are you obsessed about a crippled programming language that has >>>been obsolete for decades? >> >> I am not obsessed with it. I recognize there is value in having access >> to something that can use programs written long ago without *any* >> modifiction. > >You do have access to several independant versions of Qbasic that work >with a modern version of Windows and are freely available, but you chose >to whin that Microsoft doesn't provide them instead of using any of them. 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*. >> 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. >Passing programs around, no matter how simple or complex, is trivial >these days. For you. 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. >> 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. 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? >> 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$'s profits on the path I see them taking.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 20:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2f11kc-q66.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #538901 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 19:13:07 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 06:08:14 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:18:52 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>>>> Because the zip file containing Qbasic.exe and Qbasic.hlp is less >>>>>>> than 200k bytes, even if it's not included in operating systems >>>>>>> it can be downloaded in seconds. But there's not much point if >>>>>>> it's not supported by the O/S software. That's the part that >>>>>>> needs to be addressed. >>>>>> >>>>>>No, the thing that needs to be addressed is your obsession with an >>>>>>obsolete programming language that has been dead for decades. >>>>> >>>>> That is exactly the point. M$ discouraged the use of 16-bit software >>>>> to the benefit of those who write newer software, not necessarily to >>>>> the benefit of the end users. >>>> >>>>16-bit versus any other number of bits has nothing to do with it. >>> >>> Sure it does. M$ made it more difficult to run 16-bit programs in any >>> of their versions after WinXP. >> >>As microprocessors went from 8 to 64 bit, ALL the operating system >>vendors adjusted accordingly. >> >>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. If you had used a language that adhered to a standard, you wouldn't be having any problems with YOUR choice in doing upgrades. > >>But since there are several independant versions of Qbasic that work >>with a modern version of Windows and are freely available, this is >>just whinning on your part. >> >>>>Programming languages are in general CPU number of bits agnostic. >>>> >>>>>>If you think Qbasic is so great, why don't YOU update it to run in >>>>>>a modern version of Windows and provide it for free? >>>>> >>>>> Will M$ release the source code for that purpose? >>>> >>>>I have nothing to do with it; why don't you ask them? >>> >>> Maybe you should have checked that before you suggested that someone >>> update it. >> >>Maybe you should use one of the many independant versions of Qbasic >>that work with a modern version of Windows and are freely available >>and quite your whinning. > > My issue is not so much with QBASIC, but the experience with QBASIC is > a symptom: M$ abandoned support for 16-bit programs. QBASIC is only > one example of the problem. If M$ hadn't broken the ability to run > 16-bit programs, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Microsoft didn't break anything. Microsoft released new products which you choose to buy. >>>>> 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. >>>>> Why are you defending M$'s breakage of things that worked fine in >>>>> WinXP? >>> >>> You didn't answer the question. >> >>You have no question, just constant whinning. > > I asked: "Why are you defending M$'s breakage of things that worked > fine in WinXP?" I am not defending anything. Microsoft released new products which you choose to buy. > 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. >>>>why are you obsessed about a crippled programming language that has >>>>been obsolete for decades? >>> >>> I am not obsessed with it. I recognize there is value in having access >>> to something that can use programs written long ago without *any* >>> modifiction. >> >>You do have access to several independant versions of Qbasic that work >>with a modern version of Windows and are freely available, but you chose >>to whin that Microsoft doesn't provide them instead of using any of them. > > 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? >>> 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. ANSI X3.60-1978 "For minimal BASIC" is a standard BASIC. The world of "all machines" is more than Windows machines. >>Passing programs around, no matter how simple or complex, is trivial >>these days. > > For you. And for just about everyone other than you apparently. > 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. Microsoft changes things to address what Microsoft feels is the desires of their customer base. >>> 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. > > 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. 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$'s profits on the path I see them > taking. That is your choice. If you think you know how to do it better than Microsoft, nothing is keeping you from starting your own company to provide an OS with support for a decades old version of BASIC and 16 bit programs. I'm sure there is a huge customer base out there for that... -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 15:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ubmr6bt1f28l57ktrkjvnr4jvhki862uug@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #538922 |
On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:36:18 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> You seem to be unwilling to recognize that M$ created problems for >> others. Why are you so resistant to recognizing that fact? > >Microsoft did not create any problems for anyone. Pure lunacy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 21:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <k731kc-cb6.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #538924 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:36:18 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>> 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. > > Pure lunacy. Pure childishness. YOU chose to buy a computer. YOU chose to buy a Microsoft OS. YOU chose to upgrade the Microsoft OS YOU bought. YOU created and problems YOU have. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 19:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <rs4s6bl6bg76if92ka3g1ja0gsqkll7n2j@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #538935 |
On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 21:06:28 -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: >> >>>> 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. >> >> Pure lunacy. > >Pure childishness. > >YOU chose to buy a computer. > >YOU chose to buy a Microsoft OS. > >YOU chose to upgrade the Microsoft OS YOU bought. > >YOU created and problems YOU have. Addressed in my post at 7:55 pm. A reasonable person would conclude that M$ caused *you* at least a real estate problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-14 01:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7ri1kc-hs7.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #538957 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 21:06:28 -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: >>> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> Pure lunacy. >> >>Pure childishness. >> >>YOU chose to buy a computer. >> >>YOU chose to buy a Microsoft OS. >> >>YOU chose to upgrade the Microsoft OS YOU bought. >> >>YOU created and problems YOU have. > > Addressed in my post at 7:55 pm. Not going to dig through headers to find a time stamp. > A reasonable person would conclude that M$ caused *you* at least a > real estate problem. Gibberish; how in the world do you come to a conclusion like that? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 20:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ka8s6b5l9kha6eeqhf0gt7cqosom143rs3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #538958 |
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 01:32:55 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 21:06:28 -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: >>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Pure lunacy. >>> >>>Pure childishness. >>> >>>YOU chose to buy a computer. >>> >>>YOU chose to buy a Microsoft OS. >>> >>>YOU chose to upgrade the Microsoft OS YOU bought. >>> >>>YOU created and problems YOU have. >> >> Addressed in my post at 7:55 pm. > >Not going to dig through headers to find a time stamp. > >> A reasonable person would conclude that M$ caused *you* at least a >> real estate problem. > >Gibberish; how in the world do you come to a conclusion like that? Explained in the post you won't look at.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-14 03:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <qro1kc-ke8.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #538959 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 01:32:55 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 21:06:28 -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: >>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> Pure lunacy. >>>> >>>>Pure childishness. >>>> >>>>YOU chose to buy a computer. >>>> >>>>YOU chose to buy a Microsoft OS. >>>> >>>>YOU chose to upgrade the Microsoft OS YOU bought. >>>> >>>>YOU created and problems YOU have. >>> >>> Addressed in my post at 7:55 pm. >> >>Not going to dig through headers to find a time stamp. >> >>> A reasonable person would conclude that M$ caused *you* at least a >>> real estate problem. >> >>Gibberish; how in the world do you come to a conclusion like that? > > Explained in the post you won't look at. What I actually said was I was not going to dig through headers to find a time stamp. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web