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 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-06 10:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <bsj86b5ep5r12jarshhmpp8nusem4hkt6i@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #537624 |
On Sun, 06 Dec 2015 00:55:15 -0500, Wally W. wrote: >On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 02:37:12 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>> Wally W. wrote: >>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> Max Keon <msk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> It's a self-fulfilling condition. It is gone from the Windows >>>> distribution, therefore it is not immediately available to all users >>>> ... and ... lookie there: "no one" wants it. >>>> >>>> *You* don't want to use it. I have little use for it. I prefer a BASIC >>>> dialect that generally works better for me. >>>> >>>> But it has as much place in a Windows distribution as some of the >>>> games do. And it is only ... what?! ... less than 1/4 megabyte spread >>>> across two files. >>>> >>>> FreeCell is three times that size. >>>> >>>>>>>> Qbasic can be upgraded to suit modern technology without changing >>>>>>>> its format. It has a comprehensive help file that's very easy to >>>>>>>> follow, and the keyword examples can be copy-pasted into the main >>>>>>>> screen and run. Their function becomes readily apparent when the >>>>>>>> variables are altered. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yet NO ONE is interested in doing it. >>>> >>>> Incorrect: >>>> http://www.qbasic.net/ >>>> http://www.freebasic.net/ >>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/quickbasic/?source=directory >>>> QBASIC is an IDE and interpreter based on QuickBasic developed for the >>>> Windows OS. >>> >>> I have to say I'm very impressed with freebasic and where it >>> appears to be heading. And the help system is very user friendly. >>> It would be a fairly simple process to make the move to freebasic >>> for anyone familiar with Qbasic. But with the scuttling of Qbasic >>> the user base generated from that source is diminishing, and it >>> will continue to do so. >>> >>> If Qbasic is gone for good, a simplified (64 bit capable) version >>> of freebasic that's comparable to Qbasic could be recommended as >>> an introduction to the full blown version. The introductory >>> version may satisfy one's needs for ever, but the next step is >>> very simple if it's ever needed. >>> >>> ----- >>> >>> Max Keon >> >>It is obvious you have never taken a programming course. > >If true, why would that be relevant to the discussion about QBASIC >being on home computers, where vast numbers of people never took a >programming course; many are too young to be admitted. Actually, this discussion is lost in the weeds. The bigger problem is that M$ abandoned *all* 16-bit software that used to run fine in Windows. If the latest versions of Windows included a DVM that supports DOS programs, there would be no problem running QBASIC. M$ broke much more than the abililty to use QBASIC.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-06 18:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nmcejc-rs2.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #537655 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Sun, 06 Dec 2015 00:55:15 -0500, Wally W. wrote: > > Actually, this discussion is lost in the weeds. > > The bigger problem is that M$ abandoned *all* 16-bit software that > used to run fine in Windows. You say that like it is a bad thing. > If the latest versions of Windows included a DVM that supports DOS > programs, there would be no problem running QBASIC. And the market sector for that is what, you and a couple of other Luddites? > M$ broke much more than the abililty to use QBASIC. Yet Microsoft is in no danger of going bankrupt. You do understand that Microsoft is a business to make money? And more to the point, if that obsolete stuff is so great, why aren't you still running Windows 3? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-07 03:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <56ga6blfjs04sc6ivpfam1va5u02e5pak7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #537688 |
On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 18:51:35 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 06 Dec 2015 00:55:15 -0500, Wally W. wrote: >> >> Actually, this discussion is lost in the weeds. >> >> The bigger problem is that M$ abandoned *all* 16-bit software that >> used to run fine in Windows. > >You say that like it is a bad thing. Why is it a good thing? What would be wrong with having support for 16-bit software in the latest version of Windows? The writers of VDOS and DOSBox can make 16-bit DOS programs run on a 64-bit system. M$ just decided they didn't want to. >> If the latest versions of Windows included a DVM that supports DOS >> programs, there would be no problem running QBASIC. > >And the market sector for that is what, you and a couple of other Luddites? The software companies want people to keep upgrading. Pulling the rug out from under users of 16-bit programs gave them a boost in business with little or no benefit to some who were forced to "upgrade." >> M$ broke much more than the abililty to use QBASIC. > >Yet Microsoft is in no danger of going bankrupt. They aren't putting Windows 10 on my machines. >You do understand that Microsoft is a business to make money? By any means necessary? >And more to the point, if that obsolete stuff is so great, why aren't >you still running Windows 3? Because the Windows 3 programs I liked run fine in XP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-07 13:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005264F614A5FB0@aca44637.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #537791 |
Wally W. wrote: > On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 18:51:35 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, 06 Dec 2015 00:55:15 -0500, Wally W. wrote: >>> >>> Actually, this discussion is lost in the weeds. >>> >>> The bigger problem is that M$ abandoned *all* 16-bit software that >>> used to run fine in Windows. >> >>You say that like it is a bad thing. > > Why is it a good thing? > > What would be wrong with having support for 16-bit software in the > latest version of Windows? > > The writers of VDOS and DOSBox can make 16-bit DOS programs run on a > 64-bit system. > > M$ just decided they didn't want to. They shouldn't if they want to remain in business. Look at what happened to Wang. > > >>> If the latest versions of Windows included a DVM that supports DOS >>> programs, there would be no problem running QBASIC. >> >>And the market sector for that is what, you and a couple of other Luddites? > > The software companies want people to keep upgrading. Pulling the rug > out from under users of 16-bit programs gave them a boost in business > with little or no benefit to some who were forced to "upgrade." Old games can be played under Win 7. They are installed into an x86 area. I assume an emulator is invoked. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-07 19:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cp2hjc-1lb.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #537791 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 18:51:35 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, 06 Dec 2015 00:55:15 -0500, Wally W. wrote: >>> >>> Actually, this discussion is lost in the weeds. >>> >>> The bigger problem is that M$ abandoned *all* 16-bit software that >>> used to run fine in Windows. >> >>You say that like it is a bad thing. > > Why is it a good thing? It is neither, it is simply a fact of life that the world has moved on past the 8008 CPU. > What would be wrong with having support for 16-bit software in the > latest version of Windows? Nothing if you are willing to pay for it, Microsoft is obviously not willing to do so as it seems there is no market for it. > The writers of VDOS and DOSBox can make 16-bit DOS programs run on a > 64-bit system. > > M$ just decided they didn't want to. Or Microsoft decided there was no return on investment for such things. >>> If the latest versions of Windows included a DVM that supports DOS >>> programs, there would be no problem running QBASIC. >> >>And the market sector for that is what, you and a couple of other Luddites? > > The software companies want people to keep upgrading. Pulling the rug > out from under users of 16-bit programs gave them a boost in business > with little or no benefit to some who were forced to "upgrade." Nobody was forced to upgrade anything. You could still be running your original DOS box today if you had choosen to do so, but you didn't. So it appears Microsoft was correct in it's marketing methods; you found the newer product more enticing than the old product and upgraded. >>> M$ broke much more than the abililty to use QBASIC. >> >>Yet Microsoft is in no danger of going bankrupt. > > They aren't putting Windows 10 on my machines. I am quite sure Microsoft doesn't know you exist or care at all what you do. >>You do understand that Microsoft is a business to make money? > > By any means necessary? By means that make money, i.e. addressing the desires of the majority and not just a handfull of Luddites. >>And more to the point, if that obsolete stuff is so great, why aren't >>you still running Windows 3? > > Because the Windows 3 programs I liked run fine in XP. So run XP forever and stop whinning. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-07 15:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3524988f-d33e-496b-8694-bf0c7d387ce1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #537655 |
Wally W. wrote: > ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> Max Keon <msk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>> Wally W. wrote: >>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: --- --- >>>>> Very few people would use Qbasic as is shown by the utter lack of >>>>> popular demand for it. >>>> >>>> It's a self-fulfilling condition. It is gone from the Windows >>>> distribution, therefore it is not immediately available to all users >>>> ... and ... lookie there: "no one" wants it. >>>> >>>> *You* don't want to use it. I have little use for it. I prefer a BASIC >>>> dialect that generally works better for me. >>>> >>>> But it has as much place in a Windows distribution as some of the >>>> games do. And it is only ... what?! ... less than 1/4 megabyte spread >>>> across two files. >>>> >>>> FreeCell is three times that size. >>>> >>>>>>>> Qbasic can be upgraded to suit modern technology without changing >>>>>>>> its format. It has a comprehensive help file that's very easy to >>>>>>>> follow, and the keyword examples can be copy-pasted into the main >>>>>>>> screen and run. Their function becomes readily apparent when the >>>>>>>> variables are altered. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yet NO ONE is interested in doing it. >>>> >>>> Incorrect: >>>> http://www.qbasic.net/ >>>> http://www.freebasic.net/ >>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/quickbasic/?source=directory >>>> QBASIC is an IDE and interpreter based on QuickBasic developed for the >>>> Windows OS. >>> >>> I have to say I'm very impressed with freebasic and where it >>> appears to be heading. And the help system is very user friendly. >>> It would be a fairly simple process to make the move to freebasic >>> for anyone familiar with Qbasic. But with the scuttling of Qbasic >>> the user base generated from that source is diminishing, and it >>> will continue to do so. >>> >>> If Qbasic is gone for good, a simplified (64 bit capable) version >>> of freebasic that's comparable to Qbasic could be recommended as >>> an introduction to the full blown version. The introductory >>> version may satisfy one's needs for ever, but the next step is >>> very simple if it's ever needed. >> >> It is obvious you have never taken a programming course. > > If true, why would that be relevant to the discussion about QBASIC > being on home computers, where vast numbers of people never took a > programming course; many are too young to be admitted. > > Actually, this discussion is lost in the weeds. > > The bigger problem is that M$ abandoned *all* 16-bit software that > used to run fine in Windows. > > If the latest versions of Windows included a DVM that supports DOS > programs, there would be no problem running QBASIC. > > M$ broke much more than the abililty to use QBASIC. They have demolished far more than Qbasic for me too. I had previously used 16 bit programs on a daily basis, not just to satisfy the occasional whim. I most certainly agree with you. My intention here is to have Qbasic reinstated and promoted as a means of communicating whatever may be applicable within its capability via the internet. It may pave the way for the return of all other 16 bit programs as well. I downloaded FreeBasic from the link you provided above and was disappointed to find that it was a compiler for programs written in a similar format to Qbasic. Programs can be written in any text editor, but they can't be run from the text as with Qbasic. They must first be compiled to .exe files before the result can be noted. The .exe file would need to accompany a text file posted on the internet. And the consequences of altering any of the variables could not be noted unless the user compiles the updated text file to an executable file. How user friendly is that compared with using Qbasic? There is no comparison! Don't get me wrong though, http://www.freebasic.net/ is a brilliant project. ----- Max Keon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-06 18:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v9cejc-rs2.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #537624 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 02:37:12 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>It is obvious you have never taken a programming course. > > If true, why would that be relevant to the discussion about QBASIC > being on home computers, where vast numbers of people never took a > programming course; many are too young to be admitted. It is relevant to the arguement that QBASIC is somehow the ideal language for initial teaching of programming. There is no such thing. First there was BASIC and that fell apart as it had things like GOTO, no variable typing, and nowhere to go. Then came Pascal with strict structuring and good programming concepts, but again nowhere to go. Finally everyone gave up on the concept of a training wheels language and instead went to instruction in real, usefull languages starting with basic concepts and building upon the base. As for "too young to be admitted", that is what books are for. No one ever learned to program by typing crap at random to see what happens. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-14 15:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000526DD55009228@aca423b8.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #537685 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-14 16:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n4msb7$1hn$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #539075 |
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) jmfbahciv wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 02:37:12 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > <snip> > > Jim, the guy doesn't know what "16-bit" means. What does it mean, other than 16 bits? lol.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-14 13:13 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n4n4cl$lb7$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #539100 |
On 12/14/2015 10:56 AM, Jason Wyome wrote: > ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 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. > > What does it mean, other than 16 bits? lol. > 15 data bits and one check bit for odd parity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-14 19:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2i3kc-rce.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #539100 |
Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> wrote: > ( ͡° ?ʖ ͡°) 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. > > What does it mean, other than 16 bits? lol. The 8086 instruction set, idiot. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-14 20:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n4n9sm$2i2$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #539145 |
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) jimp wrote: > Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> wrote: >> ( ͡° ?ʖ ͡°) 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. >> >> What does it mean, other than 16 bits? lol. > > The 8086 instruction set, idiot. Has nothing to do with processors and instruction sets in that context, you blind fool. And instructions sets for a 8086 may be larger than the 16 bits. You should have been saying 16bit processor, not instruction-set, but as said, would be out of context. But the 16 may relates to anything, 16b code, 16b CRC, 16b dataword, 16b mux, etc etc. I bet you don't even know what characterize a 16bit processor, or a micro- controller if you wish.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-14 21:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ibp3kc-34f.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #539159 |
In sci.physics Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> wrote: > ( ͡° ?ʖ ͡°) jimp wrote: > >> Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> wrote: >>> ( ͡° ?ʖ ͡°) 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. >>> >>> What does it mean, other than 16 bits? lol. >> >> The 8086 instruction set, idiot. > > Has nothing to do with processors and instruction sets in that context, > you blind fool. And instructions sets for a 8086 may be larger than the 16 > bits. You should have been saying 16bit processor, not instruction-set, > but as said, would be out of context. But the 16 may relates to anything, > 16b code, 16b CRC, 16b dataword, 16b mux, etc etc. No, I said the 8086 instruction set, which is what legacy Windows was coded for, and I meant 8086 instruction set, idiot. The 8086 was 16 bit only. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8086 -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-14 22:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n4ng45$gbf$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #539182 |
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) jimp wrote: >> Has nothing to do with processors and instruction sets in that context, >> you blind fool. And instructions sets for a 8086 may be larger than the >> 16 bits. You should have been saying 16bit processor, not >> instruction-set, but as said, would be out of context. But the 16 may >> relates to anything, 16b code, 16b CRC, 16b dataword, 16b mux, etc etc. > > No, I said the 8086 instruction set, which is what legacy Windows was > coded for, and I meant 8086 instruction set, idiot. > The 8086 was 16 bit only. I know better than you what an i8086 stands for (remark the difference, stoopid). But you still appear severely uneducated. I must repeat, the instruction set for a 16b i8086 CISC (complex) may be larger OR smaller than 16b. (ie 8b, 16b, 24b, 32b etc) That's why is called CISC and not a RISC. Hopefully you just got a lesson you never forget. https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/X86_Assembly/Machine_Language_Conversion "The x86 architecture is a complex instruction set computer (CISC) architecture. Amongst other things, this means that the instructions for the x86 architecture are of varying lengths. This can make the processes of assembly, disassembly and instruction decoding more complicated, because the instruction length needs to be calculated for each instruction." See now you are an idiot?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-15 00:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8a24kc-cvf.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #539199 |
In sci.physics Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> wrote: > ( ͡° ?ʖ ͡°) jimp wrote: > >>> Has nothing to do with processors and instruction sets in that context, >>> you blind fool. And instructions sets for a 8086 may be larger than the >>> 16 bits. You should have been saying 16bit processor, not >>> instruction-set, but as said, would be out of context. But the 16 may >>> relates to anything, 16b code, 16b CRC, 16b dataword, 16b mux, etc etc. >> >> No, I said the 8086 instruction set, which is what legacy Windows was >> coded for, and I meant 8086 instruction set, idiot. >> The 8086 was 16 bit only. > > I know better than you what an i8086 stands for (remark the difference, > stoopid). But you still appear severely uneducated. I must repeat, the > instruction set for a 16b i8086 CISC (complex) may be larger OR smaller > than 16b. (ie 8b, 16b, 24b, 32b etc) That's why is called CISC and not a > RISC. Hopefully you just got a lesson you never forget. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8086 Read it an learn what an idiot you are. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-14 21:57 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n4o33o$lga$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #539159 |
On 12/14/2015 2:47 PM, Jason Wyome wrote:
> ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) jimp wrote:
>
>> Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> wrote:
>>> ( ͡° ?ʖ ͡°) 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.
>>>
>>> What does it mean, other than 16 bits? lol.
>>
>> The 8086 instruction set, idiot.
>
> Has nothing to do with processors and instruction sets in that context,
> you blind fool. And instructions sets for a 8086 may be larger than the 16
> bits. You should have been saying 16bit processor, not instruction-set,
> but as said, would be out of context. But the 16 may relates to anything,
> 16b code, 16b CRC, 16b dataword, 16b mux, etc etc.
>
> I bet you don't even know what characterize a 16bit processor, or a micro-
> controller if you wish.
>
It is the size of the accumulator.
the 16 bit accumulator is the defining term, not instruction set, not 16
bit processor (slang), not CRC, not code.
The accumulator is part of the processor, it is hardware.
google for it.
I don't have the time to learn you all that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-15 05:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tcj4kc-inh.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #539256 |
In sci.physics gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: > On 12/14/2015 2:47 PM, Jason Wyome wrote: >> ( ͡° ?ʖ ͡°) jimp wrote: >> >>> Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> wrote: >>>> ( ͡° ?ʖ ͡°) 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. >>>> >>>> What does it mean, other than 16 bits? lol. >>> >>> The 8086 instruction set, idiot. >> >> Has nothing to do with processors and instruction sets in that context, >> you blind fool. And instructions sets for a 8086 may be larger than the 16 >> bits. You should have been saying 16bit processor, not instruction-set, >> but as said, would be out of context. But the 16 may relates to anything, >> 16b code, 16b CRC, 16b dataword, 16b mux, etc etc. >> >> I bet you don't even know what characterize a 16bit processor, or a micro- >> controller if you wish. >> > > It is the size of the accumulator. > > the 16 bit accumulator is the defining term, not instruction set, not 16 > bit processor (slang), not CRC, not code. > > The accumulator is part of the processor, it is hardware. > > > google for it. > > > I don't have the time to learn you all that. The topic is early implementations of Windows which were written around the instruction set of the Intel 8086 chip. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jürgen Großenbuch <jurgengb@adenauer.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-15 15:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n4pa2f$gqb$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #539256 |
gilber34 wrote: >>> The 8086 instruction set, idiot. >> >> Has nothing to do with processors and instruction sets in that context, >> you blind fool. And instructions sets for a 8086 may be larger than the >> 16 bits. You should have been saying 16bit processor, not >> instruction-set, >> but as said, would be out of context. But the 16 may relates to >> anything, 16b code, 16b CRC, 16b dataword, 16b mux, etc etc. >> I bet you don't even know what characterize a 16bit processor, or a >> micro-controller if you wish. > > It is the size of the accumulator. > the 16 bit accumulator is the defining term, not instruction set, not 16 > bit processor (slang), not CRC, not code. > The accumulator is part of the processor, it is hardware google for it. > I don't have the time to learn you all that. jimp said "instruction set", you stupid sack. Of course is the ALU, more exactly the size (wideness) of the Registers, and also usually the size of Data-Bus (usually read through a single-cycle). Jason Wyome is perfectly right. You and jimps are morons.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-14 19:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <00h3kc-1ae.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #539075 |
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. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-15 13:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000526EFB2609ADF@aca44209.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #539133 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web