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 9 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9]
| From | Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-27 01:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2caf2df7-6086-4d05-bae7-b8417e670dc3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #535617 |
On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 2:18:23 AM UTC+11, jmfbahciv wrote: > Max Keon wrote: >> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> Max Keon <msk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > <snip> > >> It quickly became clear to me that I would always be a puppet of >> the O/S programmers. These folk would become supreme beings who >> would share their brilliance with the world at a cost, and that >> is completely understandable. > > You have a very, very strange notion w.r.t. OS developers. That all stemmed from an episode of South Park, where the "Apple Genius's" were being criticized by the South Park crew. ----- Max Keon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-27 14:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000525867EB5CA73@aca42324.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #535857 |
Max Keon wrote: > On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 2:18:23 AM UTC+11, jmfbahciv wrote: >> Max Keon wrote: >>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> Max Keon <msk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>> It quickly became clear to me that I would always be a puppet of >>> the O/S programmers. These folk would become supreme beings who >>> would share their brilliance with the world at a cost, and that >>> is completely understandable. >> >> You have a very, very strange notion w.r.t. OS developers. > > That all stemmed from an episode of South Park, where the "Apple > Genius's" were being criticized by the South Park crew. Ah. I can guarantee you that OS development is not a cartoon but consists of blood, sweat, tears and swears when trying to get hardware, which doesn't work well, to work better than the specification and deliver functional computing services without hiccups to the user/system owner. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 15:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <aa8bfa22-38d9-4347-8068-db75167ec18c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #532266 |
On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 7:50:29 PM UTC-8, Max Keon wrote: > The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. > > Prior to the introduction of Windows 7, the files Qbasic.exe and > Qbasic.hlp were included in the self extracting zip file, olddos.exe, > which was available as a free download from Microsoft. It's no longer > available. > > Early in 2013 I asked this question of the Microsoft Community; "How do I > obtain permission to store a copy of Qbasic on my web pages that can be > downloaded by anyone wishing to do so? Permission is all I require." > > I was given verbal permission in a phone conversation with a Microsoft > representative. He said the software was obsolete and of no further use > to Microsoft. I couldn't expect more than a verbal OK in this case. > > I've stored the necessary info for downloading Qbasic at this address. > http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/qbastest.html > > If Qbasic was installed in every computer on earth, it would be one of > the greatest communication tools emerging from the 20th century. There's > nothing else in the world that compares in this field. The problem now is > that XP is the latest Windows version that will properly run the software > and most folk have progressed beyond that. > > Quick Basic can be used to generate the frames for animations. But > creating animations is very time consuming and the files can be extremely > large. Posting a Qbasic program of only a few thousand bytes can give the > equivalent of an animation that would fill up a hard drive, and it will > have user input capability. > > This program performs calculations at 7.6 million steps > http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/mercxmp3.html > Its purpose should be evident here > http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pio-merc.html > > ----- > > Max Keon Seems like there was a difference between Qbasic and full blown Quick Basic. I've worked with both. Double-A
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 23:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e9kfhc-384.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #532529 |
Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 7:50:29 PM UTC-8, Max Keon wrote: >> The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. >> >> Prior to the introduction of Windows 7, the files Qbasic.exe and >> Qbasic.hlp were included in the self extracting zip file, olddos.exe, >> which was available as a free download from Microsoft. It's no longer >> available. >> >> Early in 2013 I asked this question of the Microsoft Community; "How do I >> obtain permission to store a copy of Qbasic on my web pages that can be >> downloaded by anyone wishing to do so? Permission is all I require." >> >> I was given verbal permission in a phone conversation with a Microsoft >> representative. He said the software was obsolete and of no further use >> to Microsoft. I couldn't expect more than a verbal OK in this case. >> >> I've stored the necessary info for downloading Qbasic at this address. >> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/qbastest.html >> >> If Qbasic was installed in every computer on earth, it would be one of >> the greatest communication tools emerging from the 20th century. There's >> nothing else in the world that compares in this field. The problem now is >> that XP is the latest Windows version that will properly run the software >> and most folk have progressed beyond that. >> >> Quick Basic can be used to generate the frames for animations. But >> creating animations is very time consuming and the files can be extremely >> large. Posting a Qbasic program of only a few thousand bytes can give the >> equivalent of an animation that would fill up a hard drive, and it will >> have user input capability. >> >> This program performs calculations at 7.6 million steps >> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/mercxmp3.html >> Its purpose should be evident here >> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pio-merc.html >> >> ----- >> >> Max Keon > > > Seems like there was a difference between Qbasic and full blown Quick Basic. I've worked with both. > > Double-A Me too (shudder). Thankfully those days are long gone. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-13 05:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <dalu1rFav4sU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #532549 |
On 11/12/2015 6:34 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> wrote: >> On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 7:50:29 PM UTC-8, Max Keon wrote: >>> The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. >>> >>> Prior to the introduction of Windows 7, the files Qbasic.exe and >>> Qbasic.hlp were included in the self extracting zip file, olddos.exe, >>> which was available as a free download from Microsoft. It's no longer >>> available. >>> >>> Early in 2013 I asked this question of the Microsoft Community; "How do I >>> obtain permission to store a copy of Qbasic on my web pages that can be >>> downloaded by anyone wishing to do so? Permission is all I require." >>> >>> I was given verbal permission in a phone conversation with a Microsoft >>> representative. He said the software was obsolete and of no further use >>> to Microsoft. I couldn't expect more than a verbal OK in this case. >>> >>> I've stored the necessary info for downloading Qbasic at this address. >>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/qbastest.html >>> >>> If Qbasic was installed in every computer on earth, it would be one of >>> the greatest communication tools emerging from the 20th century. There's >>> nothing else in the world that compares in this field. The problem now is >>> that XP is the latest Windows version that will properly run the software >>> and most folk have progressed beyond that. >>> >>> Quick Basic can be used to generate the frames for animations. But >>> creating animations is very time consuming and the files can be extremely >>> large. Posting a Qbasic program of only a few thousand bytes can give the >>> equivalent of an animation that would fill up a hard drive, and it will >>> have user input capability. >>> >>> This program performs calculations at 7.6 million steps >>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/mercxmp3.html >>> Its purpose should be evident here >>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pio-merc.html >>> >>> ----- >>> >>> Max Keon >> >> >> Seems like there was a difference between Qbasic and full blown Quick Basic. I've worked with both. >> >> Double-A > > Me too (shudder). > > Thankfully those days are long gone. Perhaps, but you give a kid a PC with a Basic interpreter and he might develop an interest in coding since Basic is so easy to learn. Other languages have a steeper learning curve IMHO. -- dvus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-13 19:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cuphhc-nrb.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #532689 |
dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote: > On 11/12/2015 6:34 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 7:50:29 PM UTC-8, Max Keon wrote: >>>> The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. >>>> >>>> Prior to the introduction of Windows 7, the files Qbasic.exe and >>>> Qbasic.hlp were included in the self extracting zip file, olddos.exe, >>>> which was available as a free download from Microsoft. It's no longer >>>> available. >>>> >>>> Early in 2013 I asked this question of the Microsoft Community; "How do I >>>> obtain permission to store a copy of Qbasic on my web pages that can be >>>> downloaded by anyone wishing to do so? Permission is all I require." >>>> >>>> I was given verbal permission in a phone conversation with a Microsoft >>>> representative. He said the software was obsolete and of no further use >>>> to Microsoft. I couldn't expect more than a verbal OK in this case. >>>> >>>> I've stored the necessary info for downloading Qbasic at this address. >>>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/qbastest.html >>>> >>>> If Qbasic was installed in every computer on earth, it would be one of >>>> the greatest communication tools emerging from the 20th century. There's >>>> nothing else in the world that compares in this field. The problem now is >>>> that XP is the latest Windows version that will properly run the software >>>> and most folk have progressed beyond that. >>>> >>>> Quick Basic can be used to generate the frames for animations. But >>>> creating animations is very time consuming and the files can be extremely >>>> large. Posting a Qbasic program of only a few thousand bytes can give the >>>> equivalent of an animation that would fill up a hard drive, and it will >>>> have user input capability. >>>> >>>> This program performs calculations at 7.6 million steps >>>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/mercxmp3.html >>>> Its purpose should be evident here >>>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pio-merc.html >>>> >>>> ----- >>>> >>>> Max Keon >>> >>> >>> Seems like there was a difference between Qbasic and full blown Quick Basic. I've worked with both. >>> >>> Double-A >> >> Me too (shudder). >> >> Thankfully those days are long gone. > > Perhaps, but you give a kid a PC with a Basic interpreter and he might > develop an interest in coding since Basic is so easy to learn. Other > languages have a steeper learning curve IMHO. That depends on what you mean by 'kid' and 'learn'. It is easy to learn how to do simple programming using most modern languages. It is not so easy to learn how to program well, and BASIC does nothing to enforce good programming habits. If you insist on a BASIC like language, Microsoft still has a free version of Visual Studio. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-13 19:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <danf0nFnikdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #532797 |
On 11/13/2015 2:23 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote: >> On 11/12/2015 6:34 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 7:50:29 PM UTC-8, Max Keon wrote: >>>>> The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. >>>>> >>>>> Prior to the introduction of Windows 7, the files Qbasic.exe and >>>>> Qbasic.hlp were included in the self extracting zip file, olddos.exe, >>>>> which was available as a free download from Microsoft. It's no longer >>>>> available. >>>>> >>>>> Early in 2013 I asked this question of the Microsoft Community; "How do I >>>>> obtain permission to store a copy of Qbasic on my web pages that can be >>>>> downloaded by anyone wishing to do so? Permission is all I require." >>>>> >>>>> I was given verbal permission in a phone conversation with a Microsoft >>>>> representative. He said the software was obsolete and of no further use >>>>> to Microsoft. I couldn't expect more than a verbal OK in this case. >>>>> >>>>> I've stored the necessary info for downloading Qbasic at this address. >>>>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/qbastest.html >>>>> >>>>> If Qbasic was installed in every computer on earth, it would be one of >>>>> the greatest communication tools emerging from the 20th century. There's >>>>> nothing else in the world that compares in this field. The problem now is >>>>> that XP is the latest Windows version that will properly run the software >>>>> and most folk have progressed beyond that. >>>>> >>>>> Quick Basic can be used to generate the frames for animations. But >>>>> creating animations is very time consuming and the files can be extremely >>>>> large. Posting a Qbasic program of only a few thousand bytes can give the >>>>> equivalent of an animation that would fill up a hard drive, and it will >>>>> have user input capability. >>>>> >>>>> This program performs calculations at 7.6 million steps >>>>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/mercxmp3.html >>>>> Its purpose should be evident here >>>>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pio-merc.html >>>>> >>>>> ----- >>>>> >>>>> Max Keon >>>> >>>> >>>> Seems like there was a difference between Qbasic and full blown Quick Basic. I've worked with both. >>>> >>>> Double-A >>> >>> Me too (shudder). >>> >>> Thankfully those days are long gone. >> >> Perhaps, but you give a kid a PC with a Basic interpreter and he might >> develop an interest in coding since Basic is so easy to learn. Other >> languages have a steeper learning curve IMHO. > > That depends on what you mean by 'kid' and 'learn'. My "kid" was around five when he began to play with our Vic-20 and "learned" how to write little programs on it. Now he does mysterious things with Excel for a living. > It is easy to learn how to do simple programming using most modern > languages. It is not so easy to learn how to program well, and BASIC > does nothing to enforce good programming habits. I wouldn't say nothing. There is well structured Basic code as well as poorly structured. > If you insist on a BASIC like language, Microsoft still has a free > version of Visual Studio. I insist on nothing. I'm simply saying it's my opinion that Basic is a good language to hook youngsters on computers and programming. I started on it and ended up writing programs for dedicated microprocessors. However, my coding days are over so I don't need Basic or any other language. -- dvus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | emptypost@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-19 19:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <709a9af6-3e93-4756-a379-8107089243c3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #532266 |
The issue is not Basic-or-no-Basic. The issue is console mode programming. Delphi 7, which is available as a download to current buyers of Delphi, has a Pascal language console mode. But that console mode makes 32-bit Windows applications not 16-bit DOS applications. The best DOS programming language that will be found is Turbo Pascal 7. Well, a few years back it was a free download from a French .edu website. The DOS operating system can be found as DR-DOS. But the PowerBasic company has console mode Basic programming languages. Now a console mode program doesn't have to have an input console. It can be a driver that installs or it can be a DLL that other programs run.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | emptypost@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-19 19:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <132cb5d9-767c-4032-acc6-55311304761a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #534157 |
> The issue is not Basic-or-no-Basic. The issue is console mode programming. > > Delphi 7, which is available as a download to current buyers of Delphi, has a Pascal language console mode. But that console mode makes 32-bit Windows applications not 16-bit DOS applications. > > The best DOS programming language that will be found is Turbo Pascal 7. Well, a few years back it was a free download from a French .edu website. > > The DOS operating system can be found as DR-DOS. > > But the PowerBasic company has console mode Basic programming languages. > > Now a console mode program doesn't have to have an input console. It can be a driver that installs or it can be a DLL that other programs run. VisualBasic has a console mode. Again, that's not to make 16-bit DOS applications but to make 32-bit Windows applications .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | emptypost@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-20 15:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <55f13240-7da7-4ed5-9c13-b405b3eed549@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #532266 |
Here's some more information: MS QBasic has some serious numerical issues. MS QuickBasic is much better and very very good. PowerBasic is related to Turbo Pascal and to Turbo C. In other words, PowerBasic is not just some programming language that someone wrote with the Unix C compiler. And PowerBasic is current for a 32-bit console mode on Windows. VisualBasic has a console mode the last I heard. I think they stepped up to match Delphi's console mode. Of course this is console mode to make 32-bit Windows applications not 16-bit DOS applications .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-21 00:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <niq4ic-e71.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #534298 |
emptypost@hotmail.com wrote: > Here's some more information: > > MS QBasic has some serious numerical issues. > > MS QuickBasic is much better and very very good. > > PowerBasic is related to Turbo Pascal and to Turbo C. In other words, PowerBasic is not just some programming language that someone wrote with the Unix C compiler. And PowerBasic is current for a 32-bit console mode on Windows. > > VisualBasic has a console mode the last I heard. I think they stepped up to match Delphi's console mode. Of course this is console mode to make 32-bit Windows applications not 16-bit DOS applications > . Or in other words, updated to work with current versions of Windows instead of requiring an OS made obsolet 20 years ago. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-20 21:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <hamv4bdqj9e8ltp08i39ieovpqqpr1la5e@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #534308 |
On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 00:30:47 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >emptypost@hotmail.com wrote: >> Here's some more information: >> >> MS QBasic has some serious numerical issues. >> >> MS QuickBasic is much better and very very good. >> >> PowerBasic is related to Turbo Pascal and to Turbo C. In other words, PowerBasic is not just some programming language that someone wrote with the Unix C compiler. And PowerBasic is current for a 32-bit console mode on Windows. >> >> VisualBasic has a console mode the last I heard. I think they stepped up to match Delphi's console mode. Of course this is console mode to make 32-bit Windows applications not 16-bit DOS applications >> . > >Or in other words, updated to work with current versions of Windows >instead of requiring an OS made obsolet 20 years ago. Windows 98 was less than 20 years ago. It ran on top of DOS. The move to the NT-based foundation instead of DOS was better for corporate IT deparments. It wasn't necessary for certain DOS functionality to be removed from the DVM in NT. Specifically, they abandoned the long file name interrupts used by DOS programs that ran as desired on Win98 machines. QBASIC could run in WinXP. "Modern" Windows won't run 16-bit applications within its gigabytes of memory usage. The repeated moves by M$ to rip traditional functionality from competent users are among the reasons to kick them to the curb and run as many things as possible in Linux.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-21 07:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q9i5ic-4h3.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #534325 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 00:30:47 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>emptypost@hotmail.com wrote: >>> Here's some more information: >>> >>> MS QBasic has some serious numerical issues. >>> >>> MS QuickBasic is much better and very very good. >>> >>> PowerBasic is related to Turbo Pascal and to Turbo C. In other words, PowerBasic is not just some programming language that someone wrote with the Unix C compiler. And PowerBasic is current for a 32-bit console mode on Windows. >>> >>> VisualBasic has a console mode the last I heard. I think they stepped up to match Delphi's console mode. Of course this is console mode to make 32-bit Windows applications not 16-bit DOS applications >>> . >> >>Or in other words, updated to work with current versions of Windows >>instead of requiring an OS made obsolet 20 years ago. > > Windows 98 was less than 20 years ago. It ran on top of DOS. My bad; 17 years ago. > The move to the NT-based foundation instead of DOS was better for > corporate IT deparments. It wasn't necessary for certain DOS > functionality to be removed from the DVM in NT. Specifically, they > abandoned the long file name interrupts used by DOS programs that ran > as desired on Win98 machines. > > QBASIC could run in WinXP. So what? > "Modern" Windows won't run 16-bit applications within its gigabytes of > memory usage. So what? > The repeated moves by M$ to rip traditional functionality from > competent users are among the reasons to kick them to the curb and run > as many things as possible in Linux. Another term for "traditional functionality" is "obsolete crap". In the interest of disclosure, I have never met a Microsoft OS that I liked. The only reason for ever using one was to get applications not available on another OS. The real world is applications. Now, please provide an example or two of a business application that would require QBASIC and could not be done much easier with a spreadsheet. BTW, in case you didn't know, you can run compatible spreadsheets on all Windows releases, all releases of Linux, all the Mac OS's and even a real OS like Solaris Unix. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-21 13:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <qlc15bt4prvot4f09m1q55up1filh86p6h@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #534358 |
On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 07:15:38 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 00:30:47 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>emptypost@hotmail.com wrote: >>>> Here's some more information: >>>> >>>> MS QBasic has some serious numerical issues. >>>> >>>> MS QuickBasic is much better and very very good. >>>> >>>> PowerBasic is related to Turbo Pascal and to Turbo C. In other words, PowerBasic is not just some programming language that someone wrote with the Unix C compiler. And PowerBasic is current for a 32-bit console mode on Windows. >>>> >>>> VisualBasic has a console mode the last I heard. I think they stepped up to match Delphi's console mode. Of course this is console mode to make 32-bit Windows applications not 16-bit DOS applications >>>> . >>> >>>Or in other words, updated to work with current versions of Windows >>>instead of requiring an OS made obsolet 20 years ago. >> >> Windows 98 was less than 20 years ago. It ran on top of DOS. > >My bad; 17 years ago. M$ officially stopped support for Win98 in July 2006 - less than ten years ago. >> The move to the NT-based foundation instead of DOS was better for >> corporate IT deparments. It wasn't necessary for certain DOS >> functionality to be removed from the DVM in NT. Specifically, they >> abandoned the long file name interrupts used by DOS programs that ran >> as desired on Win98 machines. >> >> QBASIC could run in WinXP. > >So what? Anyone who had a working program written in QBASIC could continue to use it in their most-used computer without making changes for the sake of M$'s insistence on their version of "progress." >> "Modern" Windows won't run 16-bit applications within its gigabytes of >> memory usage. > >So what? It was massively user-unfriendly to attempt to pull the plug on all 16-bit applications. Fortunately, there is DOSBox. >> The repeated moves by M$ to rip traditional functionality from >> competent users are among the reasons to kick them to the curb and run >> as many things as possible in Linux. > >Another term for "traditional functionality" is "obsolete crap". The LFN interrupts were not "obsolete crap." They allowed using file names that don't draw on a teenager's text-message abbreviations. >In the interest of disclosure, I have never met a Microsoft OS that >I liked. The only reason for ever using one was to get applications >not available on another OS. The real world is applications. Really? You didn't "choose" the operating system because it is the one that came with the machine? >Now, please provide an example or two of a business application that >would require QBASIC and could not be done much easier with a spreadsheet. First, why must it be a *business* application? Home users who did anything in QBASIC were told to go piss up a rope. Any number of procedures to process simple text files are easier in QBASIC than in a spreadsheet. For example: Consider a CSV file containing all the closing values of a stock every day the stock exchange was open for the last 30 years. Say your boss wants the stock's closing value on the last day of trading in November for each year. A QBASIC program to extract the requested information to a smaller CSV file is simple. It can be done done in a spreadsheet, but it would be tedious. The same QBASIC program could be used for any number of similar files for hundreds of companies. Extracting this information for hundreds of companies in a spreadsheet would be inefficient, error-prone, and could drive crazy the person tasked with the mind-numbing monotony. Spreadsheets are good. I have been disappointed on occasion when looking at completed BASIC program to compare the number of lines of code for 1) reading the data, 2) processing the data, 3) generating output. The "processing the data" portion can be *much* smaller than the other parts of the program. Spreadsheets are very good for parts 1 and 3 in many applicatons. Part 2 may require comparable effort whether in a spreadsheet or in QBASIC. But a spreadsheet doesn't do *everything* as well as a small QBASIC program might. >BTW, in case you didn't know, you can run compatible spreadsheets on >all Windows releases, all releases of Linux, all the Mac OS's and even >a real OS like Solaris Unix. Nice, but irrelevant to this dicussion. M$ destroyed ease-of-functionality for users who wrote and/or shared QBASIC programs by removing it from the standard software distribution, and by making it more difficult to run 16-bit programs. Those are facts. They aren't important to you. No one is holding a gun to your head to use DOSBox.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-21 19:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dtu6ic-nc8.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #534380 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 07:15:38 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 00:30:47 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>emptypost@hotmail.com wrote: >>>>> Here's some more information: >>>>> >>>>> MS QBasic has some serious numerical issues. >>>>> >>>>> MS QuickBasic is much better and very very good. >>>>> >>>>> PowerBasic is related to Turbo Pascal and to Turbo C. In other words, PowerBasic is not just some programming language that someone wrote with the Unix C compiler. And PowerBasic is current for a 32-bit console mode on Windows. >>>>> >>>>> VisualBasic has a console mode the last I heard. I think they stepped up to match Delphi's console mode. Of course this is console mode to make 32-bit Windows applications not 16-bit DOS applications >>>>> . >>>> >>>>Or in other words, updated to work with current versions of Windows >>>>instead of requiring an OS made obsolet 20 years ago. >>> >>> Windows 98 was less than 20 years ago. It ran on top of DOS. >> >>My bad; 17 years ago. > > M$ officially stopped support for Win98 in July 2006 - less than ten > years ago. > > >>> The move to the NT-based foundation instead of DOS was better for >>> corporate IT deparments. It wasn't necessary for certain DOS >>> functionality to be removed from the DVM in NT. Specifically, they >>> abandoned the long file name interrupts used by DOS programs that ran >>> as desired on Win98 machines. >>> >>> QBASIC could run in WinXP. >> >>So what? > > Anyone who had a working program written in QBASIC could continue to > use it in their most-used computer without making changes for the sake > of M$'s insistence on their version of "progress." Anyone with the slightest bit of common sense would realize that things change and would quit whinning and simply port this irreplaceable program to the lateset version of BASIC. >>> "Modern" Windows won't run 16-bit applications within its gigabytes of >>> memory usage. >> >>So what? > > It was massively user-unfriendly to attempt to pull the plug on all > 16-bit applications. Fortunately, there is DOSBox. It is called progress; 16 bit processors are obsolete. >>> The repeated moves by M$ to rip traditional functionality from >>> competent users are among the reasons to kick them to the curb and run >>> as many things as possible in Linux. >> >>Another term for "traditional functionality" is "obsolete crap". > > The LFN interrupts were not "obsolete crap." They allowed using file > names that don't draw on a teenager's text-message abbreviations. WTF are you raving about? >>In the interest of disclosure, I have never met a Microsoft OS that >>I liked. The only reason for ever using one was to get applications >>not available on another OS. The real world is applications. > > Really? You didn't "choose" the operating system because it is the one > that came with the machine? Never, neither personally or professionally. >>Now, please provide an example or two of a business application that >>would require QBASIC and could not be done much easier with a spreadsheet. > > First, why must it be a *business* application? Home users who did > anything in QBASIC were told to go piss up a rope. Because you went into a long rant about some application that had to be written at 11:30 pm for a morning report. Anyone with any sense who had a usefull QBASIC ported it long ago to a more modern version of BASIC. > Any number of procedures to process simple text files are easier in > QBASIC than in a spreadsheet. And there are many languages much better suited for processing simple text files than BASIC. What kind of text processing are you talking about, exactly? > For example: Consider a CSV file containing all the closing values of > a stock every day the stock exchange was open for the last 30 years. > > Say your boss wants the stock's closing value on the last day of > trading in November for each year. > > A QBASIC program to extract the requested information to a smaller CSV > file is simple. > > It can be done done in a spreadsheet, but it would be tedious. > > The same QBASIC program could be used for any number of similar files > for hundreds of companies. In the modern world, all that data would be in a database and a trivial PHP program would extract the data and put it on a web page. If all you wanted was numbers, you could get it with a single, simple line of SQL. > Extracting this information for hundreds of companies in a spreadsheet > would be inefficient, error-prone, and could drive crazy the person > tasked with the mind-numbing monotony. > > Spreadsheets are good. I have been disappointed on occasion when > looking at completed BASIC program to compare the number of lines of > code for 1) reading the data, 2) processing the data, 3) generating > output. > > The "processing the data" portion can be *much* smaller than the other > parts of the program. > > Spreadsheets are very good for parts 1 and 3 in many applicatons. Part > 2 may require comparable effort whether in a spreadsheet or in QBASIC. > > But a spreadsheet doesn't do *everything* as well as a small QBASIC > program might. No one in their right mind would do anything in the manner you describe in 2015. Businesses keep data in databases. BTW, spreadsheets can be interfaced to get data from databases. >>BTW, in case you didn't know, you can run compatible spreadsheets on >>all Windows releases, all releases of Linux, all the Mac OS's and even >>a real OS like Solaris Unix. > > Nice, but irrelevant to this dicussion. > > M$ destroyed ease-of-functionality for users who wrote and/or shared > QBASIC programs by removing it from the standard software > distribution, and by making it more difficult to run 16-bit programs. No one in their right mind wants to run 16 bit programs. 16 bit processors are obsolete. Anyone with any sense that had a QBASIC program that did anything usefull has long ago ported it to a modern version of BASIC. > Those are facts. Those are a pile of ignorant whinning about a non-issue. > They aren't important to you. > > No one is holding a gun to your head to use DOSBox. And I don't have any ancient games that I want to play. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-21 15:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <p4k15bpoq1u83crt47sjj1kebmjnvml4tc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #534400 |
On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:57:01 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: Speaking of bigots: >No one in their right mind wants to run 16 bit programs. > >16 bit processors are obsolete. Many disagree with you: http://www.dosbox.com/ https://www.vdos.info/ http://www.freedos.org/ http://www.dosemu.org/ >Anyone with any sense that had a QBASIC program that did anything usefull >has long ago ported it to a modern version of BASIC. ... in their spare time, which they wanted to spend on nothing besides adapting to where M$ wanted them to go ... today. http://www.denounce.com/mswhere.html Microsoft Corporation ... dropping its "Where Do You Want To Go Today?" ad campaign Now they seem to think they know where we *should* go ... until they decide we should want to go somewhere else ... again. All change is not "progress." I am using a 16-bit DOS program today. Though there have been many attempts to put a "Windows" face on the basic functionality of this program, they have all fallen short of the user-friendliness provided by the DOS version. I endure the pain of using their Windows version only if I need some of the newer features. >No one in their right mind would do anything in the manner >you describe in 2015. A non-specific attempt to disparage. >Businesses keep data in databases. Some do. Many don't. Certainly not *all* their data. I encounter many people in business who barely know how to use a spreadsheet. They are clueless about databases. They have *nothing* in a database. They not even heard of PHP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-21 22:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <3o87ic-eb9.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #534409 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:57:01 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > Speaking of bigots: > >>No one in their right mind wants to run 16 bit programs. >> >>16 bit processors are obsolete. > > Many disagree with you: > http://www.dosbox.com/ > https://www.vdos.info/ > http://www.freedos.org/ > http://www.dosemu.org/ The number of people running those is trivial and all are hobbysts. Business does not run 16 bit programs. >>Anyone with any sense that had a QBASIC program that did anything usefull >>has long ago ported it to a modern version of BASIC. > > ... in their spare time, which they wanted to spend on nothing besides > adapting to where M$ wanted them to go ... today. Yes, in their spare time as anything would be a hobby application anyway. > http://www.denounce.com/mswhere.html > Microsoft Corporation ... dropping its "Where Do You Want To Go > Today?" ad campaign So what? > Now they seem to think they know where we *should* go ... until they > decide we should want to go somewhere else ... again. All companies do that, grow up. > All change is not "progress." Perhaps not, but the progression from 8 to 16 to 32 to 64 bit CPU's certainly was. > I am using a 16-bit DOS program today. What does it do, keep track of when your horse needs shoeing? > Though there have been many attempts to put a "Windows" face on the > basic functionality of this program, they have all fallen short of the > user-friendliness provided by the DOS version. Likely because you haven't ported to a modern BASIC that would make it easy to do. > I endure the pain of using their Windows version only if I need some > of the newer features. Poor baby. > >>No one in their right mind would do anything in the manner >>you describe in 2015. > > A non-specific attempt to disparage. > > >>Businesses keep data in databases. Is that specific enough for you? > Some do. Many don't. Certainly not *all* their data. Most all do these days. Even my single person doctor, dentist, and optometrist offices do. All the attorneys my wife worked for did. All of my coporate clients do. Anyone that needs to deal with data these days has it in a database. That database may be hidding behind some application interface for the general user, but there will be a database. You are stuck in 1979. > I encounter many people in business who barely know how to use a > spreadsheet. > > They are clueless about databases. They have *nothing* in a database. > They not even heard of PHP. Of course, as most people in business don't do such things. If they need a report on something they go to IT and request it. And I guarantee the IT guy is NOT going to write a program in BASIC to do it. The only ones likely to be doing anything themselves are in accounting and they aren't going to be writting BASIC either. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-21 22:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <44d25btm5l6vuhlmr7f30qsc3vgr91mv17@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #534437 |
On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 22:44:51 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:57:01 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> > >>>Anyone with any sense that had a QBASIC program that did anything usefull >>>has long ago ported it to a modern version of BASIC. >> >> ... in their spare time, which they wanted to spend on nothing besides >> adapting to where M$ wanted them to go ... today. > >Yes, in their spare time as anything would be a hobby application anyway. So wasting the time of hobbiests is okay? Why did so many games ship with Win7 if business is the only target? >> Now they seem to think they know where we *should* go ... until they >> decide we should want to go somewhere else ... again. > >All companies do that, grow up. The power company doesn't. Should they start sending you 302-volt, 83-Hz power tomorrow because they have a whim to do so? Motor manufacturers would like that: forcing customers to buy new product to do the same thing. >You are stuck in 1979. That would be pre-DOS: http://www.skrause.org/computers/dos_history.shtml Development of MSDOS/PCDOS began in October 1980 >Of course, as most people in business don't do such things. If they >need a report on something they go to IT and request it. You experience with IT departments differs from mine. Perhaps your scenario was more common when the *other* evil empire ruled the landscape; and even the keyboards were in a locked room.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 05:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <riv7ic-dfb.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #534488 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 22:44:51 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:57:01 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >> >>>>Anyone with any sense that had a QBASIC program that did anything usefull >>>>has long ago ported it to a modern version of BASIC. >>> >>> ... in their spare time, which they wanted to spend on nothing besides >>> adapting to where M$ wanted them to go ... today. >> >>Yes, in their spare time as anything would be a hobby application anyway. > > So wasting the time of hobbiests is okay? It is the hobbyist insisting that software decades old be maintained. Is the hobbyist going to pay for the maintenance of that software? > Why did so many games ship with Win7 if business is the only target? No one ever said business was the ONLY target customer base for Windows. This is just another red herring. >>> Now they seem to think they know where we *should* go ... until they >>> decide we should want to go somewhere else ... again. >> >>All companies do that, grow up. > > The power company doesn't. Sure they do. Don't you get letters from your utility companies tell you what kind of appliances you should buy and that you are going to get a new, real time meter? > Should they start sending you 302-volt, 83-Hz power tomorrow because > they have a whim to do so? All this arm waving about utilities ignores the fact that they are all government regulated and limited to what they can do by law. It is also just another arm waving red herring. > Motor manufacturers would like that: forcing customers to buy new > product to do the same thing. Red herring. >>You are stuck in 1979. > > That would be pre-DOS: So what, that seems to be your mind set. > http://www.skrause.org/computers/dos_history.shtml > Development of MSDOS/PCDOS began in October 1980 > > >>Of course, as most people in business don't do such things. If they >>need a report on something they go to IT and request it. > > You experience with IT departments differs from mine. I doubt you have ever had a rational experience with any IT department anywhere given the mind set you have displayed in this screed. > Perhaps your scenario was more common when the *other* evil empire > ruled the landscape; and even the keyboards were in a locked room. Oh shit, here we go off on business as evil entities. Yes, there was a time when computers were such an expensive item to own and operate access to them was limited to those qualified to do so, which means you likely never saw the inside of a machine room. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | emptypost@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-25 22:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <21f07452-734f-4642-ba4d-7be83f33d132@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #532266 |
I took a look at FreeBasic. It looks like a programming language written with the Unix C compiler. The C compiler was ported to Windows, I think as part of the MS anti-trust settlement, and that's about 20MB. It's awkward and I don't think any fan of QuickBasic 4.5 or of Turbo Pascal 7 would be interested. PowerBasic was popular at the time of QuickBasic 4.5 and Turbo Pascal 7. And PowerBasic is current with 32-bit console programming .
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web