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 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 19:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p94fhc-ei2.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #532332 |
gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: > On 11/12/2015 8:43 AM, Sam Wormley wrote: >> On 11/11/15 9:50 PM, Max Keon wrote: >>> 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. >> >> What part of "the software is obsolete" did you miss? >> >> Anybody that wants to download can do so here: >>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/quickbasic/ >> >> But, as the jimp points out 99% have no interest. >> >> Modern computers come with the tools to compile all manner of code >> such as FORTRAN, C, C+, Objective C, Swift, etc. >> > > FORTRAN, with its lovely eight digit precision. Depends on the version of FORTRAN. > > is PHP compiled ? It can be but usually isn't. > > and BASIC, with its lovely I/O with anything. > > take BASIC + PC and you get = Unknown/undefined PC interupts > > > anyhow WIN XP is obsolete now, and WIN 7 soon will be, so IAW Microsoft, > it is no further use to Microsnot, there free for all. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 15:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3df133e9-145b-48e9-90a4-ffee6e284f40@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #532311 |
> Sam Wormley wrote: >> On 11/11/15 9:50 PM, Max Keon wrote: >> 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. > > What part of "the software is obsolete" did you miss? The "obsolete" part needs to be addressed, and that can only be done by attracting the attention of the Microsoft hierarchy. > Anybody that wants to download can do so here: >> http://sourceforge.net/projects/quickbasic/ What was wrong with my link? http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/qbastest.html > But, as the jimp points out 99% have no interest. > > Modern computers come with the tools to compile all manner of code > such as FORTRAN, C, C+, Objective C, Swift, etc. Quick Basic was included as part of the Windows package in Windows 95 and 98. Everyone had direct access to a copy. Programs could be written and freely shared across the internet. But at the time it's full potential as a simple communication tool was not realized. None of your software listed above comes **anywhere near** comparing with Qbasic. They are not included in any operating system software. And they all require fairly intensive training to even remotely master. Qbasic can be easily understood simply by using the rather brilliant help system. The description of every command (statement, function, operand ect.) usually comes with an example program that can be copy-pasted into the program window and run. By manipulating the variables the purpose of every command can be understood within a few minutes. How is your software stacking up so far? I've included a sample program for you. It can be copy-pasted directly off this screen into Qbasic. You'll need to click the icon at the top left corner of the window in which Qbasic is running. Click Edit. Click Paste. The program will be loaded in Qbasic. It demonstrates the effect of a slight variation in the normal gforce mechanism (GM/r^2.02). You will of course need to be running nothing later than XP. Let's hope that's all about to change. GM/r^2^(2.02) causes a rapid perihelion advance in the eccentric orbit shown. GM/r^(2.000001) still gives a greater perihelion advance for Mercury than is observed. But there seems to be no reason why this should happen. The program can be loaded into Qbasic and be up and running in less than 40 seconds. Your software suggestions are obviously still in the dark ages by comparison. ----- Max Keon '-------- DEFDBL A-Z SCREEN 12 CLS COLOR 7 LOCATE 7, 14 LOCATE 9, 16: PRINT "Control Break halts any Qbasic program" LOCATE 10, 12 CIRCLE (230, 240), 7, 14 c = 299792458# G = .0000000000667# M = 1.99D+30 pi = 3.14159# x = 69820000000#: vy = 38850# dt = 400 lastrad = x k = 2 aa: radius = SQR(x ^ 2# + y ^ 2#) rv = (radius - lastrad) / dt '------- gforce = -G * M / radius ^ 2.02# '------- accel = gforce ax = accel * (x / radius) ay = accel * (y / radius) vx = vx + dt * ax vy = vy + dt * ay x = x + dt * vx y = y + dt * vy IF rv < 0 AND f1 = 1 THEN GOSUB ac IF rv > 0 AND f1 = 0 THEN f1 = 1 lastrad = radius CIRCLE (230 + x * 6E-10, 240 + y * 6E-10), 0, k GOTO aa ac: CIRCLE (230 + x / 1.5E+09, 240 + y / 1.5E+09), 3, 11 f1 = 0 inc = inc + 1 k = k + 1: IF k > 15 THEN k = 1 IF inc = 5 THEN END RETURN
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-15 01:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <s82lhc-5g6.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #533169 |
Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> Sam Wormley wrote: >>> On 11/11/15 9:50 PM, Max Keon wrote: >>> 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. >> >> What part of "the software is obsolete" did you miss? > > The "obsolete" part needs to be addressed, and that can only be > done by attracting the attention of the Microsoft hierarchy. > >> Anybody that wants to download can do so here: >>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/quickbasic/ > > What was wrong with my link? > http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/qbastest.html > >> But, as the jimp points out 99% have no interest. >> >> Modern computers come with the tools to compile all manner of code >> such as FORTRAN, C, C+, Objective C, Swift, etc. > > Quick Basic was included as part of the Windows package in > Windows 95 and 98. Everyone had direct access to a copy. Programs > could be written and freely shared across the internet. But at > the time it's full potential as a simple communication tool was Quick BASIC is incapable of communicating with anything other than a pipe through the command line. > not realized. None of your software listed above comes **anywhere > near** comparing with Qbasic. They are not included in any > operating system software. All are optional on most OS's, even Microsoft. > GM/r^2^(2.02) causes a rapid perihelion advance in the eccentric Today done with a $10.00 calculator. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-18 02:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <74d12771-4846-4eba-90fc-cd1ea56868f1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #533182 |
On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 12:16:05 PM UTC+11, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Max Keon <msk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>> Sam Wormley wrote: >>>> On 11/11/15 9:50 PM, Max Keon wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> What part of "the software is obsolete" did you miss? >> >> The "obsolete" part needs to be addressed, and that can only be >> done by attracting the attention of the Microsoft hierarchy. >> >>> Anybody that wants to download can do so here: >>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/quickbasic/ >> >> What was wrong with my link? >> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/qbastest.html >> >>> But, as the jimp points out 99% have no interest. >>> >>> Modern computers come with the tools to compile all manner of code >>> such as FORTRAN, C, C+, Objective C, Swift, etc. >> >> Quick Basic was included as part of the Windows package in >> Windows 95 and 98. Everyone had direct access to a copy. Programs >> could be written and freely shared across the internet. But at >> the time it's full potential as a simple communication tool was > > Quick BASIC is incapable of communicating with anything other than > a pipe through the command line. > >> not realized. None of your software listed above comes **anywhere >> near** comparing with Qbasic. They are not included in any >> operating system software. > > All are optional on most OS's, even Microsoft. So you think I should post multiple programs to cover every possible software option? That would be absolutely ridiculous. >> GM/r^2^(2.02) causes a rapid perihelion advance in the eccentric > > Today done with a $10.00 calculator. The same calculator could handle this as well; (t^2*f/2)^2 . 't' is the time over a half orbit cycle. f is a proposed change in the gravity force that's generated by the radial velocity between objects in eccentric orbits. i.e. Sun-Mercury, Sun-Pluto. The only problem is in determining a value for 'f'. Due to the number of variables involved a simple formula doesn't seem possible. The force 'f' is time dependent and needs to be calculated in set time segments. A program can be set up to do this. But which programming language should I choose for this program? **The one that's freely available on everyone's computer of course.** These are the result from one such program. The average anisotropic force generated in the Sun-Pluto system is f = -3.214181344702657D-17 and +3.214181344702657D-17 m/sec^2. The latter is required to determine the perihelion advance. t = 3948440000 sec half orbit cycle time. (t^2*f/2)^2 = 62774.45 meter advance per orbit (248 years). 37326885490844.26 meter average orbit circumference. 62774.45234128569 / 37326885490844.26 * 360 * 3600 = 2.179546703789729D-03 arcsec advance per orbit. The program can obviously be used for any elliptical orbit. '--the program---- DEFDBL A-Z SCREEN 12 CLS CIRCLE (230, 240), 7, 14 c = 299792458# G = .0000000000667# M = 1.99D+30 pi = 3.14159# ' ---Pluto data ------------------------------------- '49.5 AU aphelion 29.7 AU perihelion x = 7.425E+12: vy = 3662 ' Aphelion start. '3662 was derived through trial and error until the 'correct perihelion radius was found. I would need to 'wait until the year 2113 to observe the orbital speed 'at aphelion. ' ------------------------------- xm = x lastrad = x dt = 40000 'seconds per segment aa: inc = inc + 1 radius = SQR(x ^ 2 + y ^ 2) rv = (radius - lastrad) / dt ' rv = radial velocity lastrad = radius gforce = -G * M / radius ^ 2# anis = rv ^ 2 / c ^ 2 * (G * M / radius ^ 2) acceleration = gforce + anis ani2 = ani2 + anis ax = acceleration * (x / radius) ay = acceleration * (y / radius) vx = vx + dt * ax vy = vy + dt * ay x = x + dt * vx y = y + dt * vy CIRCLE (230 + x * 8E-12, 240 + y * 8E-12), 0, 11 IF rv > 0 AND f1 = 1 THEN GOTO ab IF rv < 0 AND f1 = 0 THEN f1 = 1 GOTO aa ab: aniav = ani2 / inc PRINT "f ="; aniav; "average anisotropic force." t = inc * dt PRINT "t ="; t; "sec half orbit cycle time." adv = (t ^ 2 * aniav / 2) ^ 2 PRINT "(t^2*f/2)^2 ="; adv; "meter advance per orbit (248 years)." PRINT circ = (xm + radius) * pi PRINT circ; "meter average orbit circumference." PRINT adv; "/"; circ; "* 360 * 3600 =" PRINT adv / circ * 360 * 3600; "arcsec advance per orbit." '---end--- It takes only one minute to, start Qbasic, copy the program, paste it into Qbasic, run it and generate the value for 'f'. Your $10 dollar calculator is fairly useless in this case. ----- Max Keon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-18 19:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kn0vhc-rda.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #533905 |
Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 12:16:05 PM UTC+11, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> Max Keon <msk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>> Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>> On 11/11/15 9:50 PM, Max Keon wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> What part of "the software is obsolete" did you miss? >>> >>> The "obsolete" part needs to be addressed, and that can only be >>> done by attracting the attention of the Microsoft hierarchy. >>> >>>> Anybody that wants to download can do so here: >>>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/quickbasic/ >>> >>> What was wrong with my link? >>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/qbastest.html >>> >>>> But, as the jimp points out 99% have no interest. >>>> >>>> Modern computers come with the tools to compile all manner of code >>>> such as FORTRAN, C, C+, Objective C, Swift, etc. >>> >>> Quick Basic was included as part of the Windows package in >>> Windows 95 and 98. Everyone had direct access to a copy. Programs >>> could be written and freely shared across the internet. But at >>> the time it's full potential as a simple communication tool was >> >> Quick BASIC is incapable of communicating with anything other than >> a pipe through the command line. >> >>> not realized. None of your software listed above comes **anywhere >>> near** comparing with Qbasic. They are not included in any >>> operating system software. >> >> All are optional on most OS's, even Microsoft. > > So you think I should post multiple programs to cover every > possible software option? That would be absolutely ridiculous. I never said any such thing. What I did say is there are LOTS of languages available for free. >>> GM/r^2^(2.02) causes a rapid perihelion advance in the eccentric >> >> Today done with a $10.00 calculator. > > The same calculator could handle this as well; (t^2*f/2)^2 . > 't' is the time over a half orbit cycle. f is a proposed change > in the gravity force that's generated by the radial velocity > between objects in eccentric orbits. i.e. Sun-Mercury, Sun-Pluto. > The only problem is in determining a value for 'f'. Due to the > number of variables involved a simple formula doesn't seem > possible. The force 'f' is time dependent and needs to be > calculated in set time segments. A program can be set up to do > this. But which programming language should I choose for this > program? **The one that's freely available on everyone's computer > of course.** Take your pick. > These are the result from one such program. The average > anisotropic force generated in the Sun-Pluto system is > f = -3.214181344702657D-17 and +3.214181344702657D-17 m/sec^2. > The latter is required to determine the perihelion advance. > t = 3948440000 sec half orbit cycle time. > (t^2*f/2)^2 = 62774.45 meter advance per orbit (248 years). > > 37326885490844.26 meter average orbit circumference. > 62774.45234128569 / 37326885490844.26 * 360 * 3600 = > 2.179546703789729D-03 arcsec advance per orbit. > > The program can obviously be used for any elliptical orbit. > > '--the program---- > DEFDBL A-Z > SCREEN 12 > CLS > CIRCLE (230, 240), 7, 14 > c = 299792458# > G = .0000000000667# > M = 1.99D+30 > pi = 3.14159# > ' ---Pluto data ------------------------------------- > '49.5 AU aphelion 29.7 AU perihelion > x = 7.425E+12: vy = 3662 ' Aphelion start. > '3662 was derived through trial and error until the > 'correct perihelion radius was found. I would need to > 'wait until the year 2113 to observe the orbital speed > 'at aphelion. > ' ------------------------------- > xm = x > lastrad = x > dt = 40000 'seconds per segment > > aa: > inc = inc + 1 > radius = SQR(x ^ 2 + y ^ 2) > rv = (radius - lastrad) / dt ' rv = radial velocity > lastrad = radius > gforce = -G * M / radius ^ 2# > anis = rv ^ 2 / c ^ 2 * (G * M / radius ^ 2) > acceleration = gforce + anis > ani2 = ani2 + anis > ax = acceleration * (x / radius) > ay = acceleration * (y / radius) > vx = vx + dt * ax > vy = vy + dt * ay > x = x + dt * vx > y = y + dt * vy > CIRCLE (230 + x * 8E-12, 240 + y * 8E-12), 0, 11 > IF rv > 0 AND f1 = 1 THEN GOTO ab > IF rv < 0 AND f1 = 0 THEN f1 = 1 > GOTO aa > > ab: > aniav = ani2 / inc > PRINT "f ="; aniav; "average anisotropic force." > t = inc * dt > PRINT "t ="; t; "sec half orbit cycle time." > adv = (t ^ 2 * aniav / 2) ^ 2 > PRINT "(t^2*f/2)^2 ="; adv; "meter advance per orbit (248 years)." > PRINT > circ = (xm + radius) * pi > PRINT circ; "meter average orbit circumference." > PRINT adv; "/"; circ; "* 360 * 3600 =" > PRINT adv / circ * 360 * 3600; "arcsec advance per orbit." > '---end--- > > It takes only one minute to, start Qbasic, copy the program, > paste it into Qbasic, run it and generate the value for 'f'. > > Your $10 dollar calculator is fairly useless in this case. Yes, for this problem one would need to spend another 10 or 20 dollars for a programable calculator, or use just about any programming language of the many that are available for free. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-19 00:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <7pmq4bdijbf8ofq4o2eb4tdil69er6kpb2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #533978 |
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 19:39:00 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 12:16:05 PM UTC+11, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> Max Keon <msk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>>> Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>> On 11/11/15 9:50 PM, Max Keon wrote: >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> What part of "the software is obsolete" did you miss? >>>> >>>> The "obsolete" part needs to be addressed, and that can only be >>>> done by attracting the attention of the Microsoft hierarchy. >>>> >>>>> Anybody that wants to download can do so here: >>>>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/quickbasic/ >>>> >>>> What was wrong with my link? >>>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/qbastest.html >>>> >>>>> But, as the jimp points out 99% have no interest. >>>>> >>>>> Modern computers come with the tools to compile all manner of code >>>>> such as FORTRAN, C, C+, Objective C, Swift, etc. >>>> >>>> Quick Basic was included as part of the Windows package in >>>> Windows 95 and 98. Everyone had direct access to a copy. Programs >>>> could be written and freely shared across the internet. But at >>>> the time it's full potential as a simple communication tool was >>> >>> Quick BASIC is incapable of communicating with anything other than >>> a pipe through the command line. >>> >>>> not realized. None of your software listed above comes **anywhere >>>> near** comparing with Qbasic. They are not included in any >>>> operating system software. >>> >>> All are optional on most OS's, even Microsoft. >> >> So you think I should post multiple programs to cover every >> possible software option? That would be absolutely ridiculous. > >I never said any such thing. > >What I did say is there are LOTS of languages available for free. > >>>> GM/r^2^(2.02) causes a rapid perihelion advance in the eccentric >>> >>> Today done with a $10.00 calculator. >> >> The same calculator could handle this as well; (t^2*f/2)^2 . >> 't' is the time over a half orbit cycle. f is a proposed change >> in the gravity force that's generated by the radial velocity >> between objects in eccentric orbits. i.e. Sun-Mercury, Sun-Pluto. >> The only problem is in determining a value for 'f'. Due to the >> number of variables involved a simple formula doesn't seem >> possible. The force 'f' is time dependent and needs to be >> calculated in set time segments. A program can be set up to do >> this. But which programming language should I choose for this >> program? **The one that's freely available on everyone's computer >> of course.** > >Take your pick. > >> These are the result from one such program. The average >> anisotropic force generated in the Sun-Pluto system is >> f = -3.214181344702657D-17 and +3.214181344702657D-17 m/sec^2. >> The latter is required to determine the perihelion advance. >> t = 3948440000 sec half orbit cycle time. >> (t^2*f/2)^2 = 62774.45 meter advance per orbit (248 years). >> >> 37326885490844.26 meter average orbit circumference. >> 62774.45234128569 / 37326885490844.26 * 360 * 3600 = >> 2.179546703789729D-03 arcsec advance per orbit. >> >> The program can obviously be used for any elliptical orbit. >> >> '--the program---- >> DEFDBL A-Z >> SCREEN 12 >> CLS >> CIRCLE (230, 240), 7, 14 >> c = 299792458# >> G = .0000000000667# >> M = 1.99D+30 >> pi = 3.14159# >> ' ---Pluto data ------------------------------------- >> '49.5 AU aphelion 29.7 AU perihelion >> x = 7.425E+12: vy = 3662 ' Aphelion start. >> '3662 was derived through trial and error until the >> 'correct perihelion radius was found. I would need to >> 'wait until the year 2113 to observe the orbital speed >> 'at aphelion. >> ' ------------------------------- >> xm = x >> lastrad = x >> dt = 40000 'seconds per segment >> >> aa: >> inc = inc + 1 >> radius = SQR(x ^ 2 + y ^ 2) >> rv = (radius - lastrad) / dt ' rv = radial velocity >> lastrad = radius >> gforce = -G * M / radius ^ 2# >> anis = rv ^ 2 / c ^ 2 * (G * M / radius ^ 2) >> acceleration = gforce + anis >> ani2 = ani2 + anis >> ax = acceleration * (x / radius) >> ay = acceleration * (y / radius) >> vx = vx + dt * ax >> vy = vy + dt * ay >> x = x + dt * vx >> y = y + dt * vy >> CIRCLE (230 + x * 8E-12, 240 + y * 8E-12), 0, 11 >> IF rv > 0 AND f1 = 1 THEN GOTO ab >> IF rv < 0 AND f1 = 0 THEN f1 = 1 >> GOTO aa >> >> ab: >> aniav = ani2 / inc >> PRINT "f ="; aniav; "average anisotropic force." >> t = inc * dt >> PRINT "t ="; t; "sec half orbit cycle time." >> adv = (t ^ 2 * aniav / 2) ^ 2 >> PRINT "(t^2*f/2)^2 ="; adv; "meter advance per orbit (248 years)." >> PRINT >> circ = (xm + radius) * pi >> PRINT circ; "meter average orbit circumference." >> PRINT adv; "/"; circ; "* 360 * 3600 =" >> PRINT adv / circ * 360 * 3600; "arcsec advance per orbit." >> '---end--- >> >> It takes only one minute to, start Qbasic, copy the program, >> paste it into Qbasic, run it and generate the value for 'f'. >> >> Your $10 dollar calculator is fairly useless in this case. > >Yes, for this problem one would need to spend another 10 or 20 dollars >for a programable calculator, or use just about any programming language >of the many that are available for free. Your $30 calculator wouldn't have a disk drive to store the program in a convenient form. Nor would it help you email your program to others. The OS comes with gigabytes of files. Why can't they include another 100 kb file? Do you use all the functions in Excel? Should the IMCOS function be removed because 99% of Excel users don't need it? Windows comes with CSCRIPT, but the PRINT statement in BASIC is more flexible and easier to type than "wscript.echo." Yes, we can go find and install FreeBASIC, but there is something to be said for common, simple porgamming language available on all Windows machines. Unless you are a control-freak bastard in a corporate IT department.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-19 05:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8v30ic-82e.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #534016 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > Your $30 calculator wouldn't have a disk drive to store the program in > a convenient form. Nor would it help you email your program to others. Irrelevant to the main arguement that there are lots of free languages available. > The OS comes with gigabytes of files. Why can't they include another > 100 kb file? The same reason they don't come with every application that exists. > Do you use all the functions in Excel? > > Should the IMCOS function be removed because 99% of Excel users don't > need it? Excel is an application, not an operating system. > Windows comes with CSCRIPT, but the PRINT statement in BASIC is more > flexible and easier to type than "wscript.echo." PHP: echo or print. Perl: print. What's your point? > Yes, we can go find and install FreeBASIC, but there is something to > be said for common, simple porgamming language available on all > Windows machines. Or the current version of Visual Studio from Microsoft or any number of other interpreted languages that are all available as a download. > Unless you are a control-freak bastard in a corporate IT department. No one is forcing anyone to use the advanced features of any language. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-19 07:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1ugr4bp5uso6kuid4h2q6u3jqk06e5kk6p@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #534019 |
On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 05:40:24 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > >> Your $30 calculator wouldn't have a disk drive to store the program in >> a convenient form. Nor would it help you email your program to others. > >Irrelevant to the main arguement that there are lots of free languages >available. Also important: Microsoft took something away that was useful to some and traditionally included in all their OS releases until recently. >> The OS comes with gigabytes of files. Why can't they include another >> 100 kb file? > >The same reason they don't come with every application that exists. > >> Do you use all the functions in Excel? >> >> Should the IMCOS function be removed because 99% of Excel users don't >> need it? > >Excel is an application, not an operating system. > >> Windows comes with CSCRIPT, but the PRINT statement in BASIC is more >> flexible and easier to type than "wscript.echo." > >PHP: echo or print. > >Perl: print. ... but don't forget the semicolons at the end of each line. >What's your point? Summary began in the next line. >> Yes, we can go find and install FreeBASIC, but there is something to >> be said for common, simple porgamming language available on all >> Windows machines. > >Or the current version of Visual Studio from Microsoft or any number >of other interpreted languages that are all available as a download. ... which must be downloaded. And possibly installed ... if the user has rights to install the software. >> Unless you are a control-freak bastard in a corporate IT department. > >No one is forcing anyone to use the advanced features of any language. But they are prevented from using code they had already written (or received from others) in a simple environment with decent error messages if something is or goes wrong. Another option: Download Linux and tell Microsoft to pound sand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-19 18:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9gh1ic-34j.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #534033 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 05:40:24 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> >>> Your $30 calculator wouldn't have a disk drive to store the program in >>> a convenient form. Nor would it help you email your program to others. >> >>Irrelevant to the main arguement that there are lots of free languages >>available. > > Also important: Microsoft took something away that was useful to some > and traditionally included in all their OS releases until recently. If by recently you mean 27 years ago. And one more time for the very thick headed, Microsoft still supplies a version of BASIC as a free download. >>> The OS comes with gigabytes of files. Why can't they include another >>> 100 kb file? >> >>The same reason they don't come with every application that exists. >> >>> Do you use all the functions in Excel? >>> >>> Should the IMCOS function be removed because 99% of Excel users don't >>> need it? >> >>Excel is an application, not an operating system. >> >>> Windows comes with CSCRIPT, but the PRINT statement in BASIC is more >>> flexible and easier to type than "wscript.echo." >> >>PHP: echo or print. >> >>Perl: print. > > ... but don't forget the semicolons at the end of each line. In BASIC, don't forget the LET in front of every assignment. In BASIC, don't forget the GOSUB to call a subroutine. >>What's your point? > > Summary began in the next line. > >>> Yes, we can go find and install FreeBASIC, but there is something to >>> be said for common, simple porgamming language available on all >>> Windows machines. >> >>Or the current version of Visual Studio from Microsoft or any number >>of other interpreted languages that are all available as a download. > > ... which must be downloaded. And possibly installed ... if the user > has rights to install the software. If the user does not have rights to install software, most likely it is a corporate computer and the user has no business screwing around with non-corporate activities. If the user does not have rights to install software, it is guaranteed the user doesn't own the computer and has no business screwing around with the configuration. >>> Unless you are a control-freak bastard in a corporate IT department. >> >>No one is forcing anyone to use the advanced features of any language. > > But they are prevented from using code they had already written (or > received from others) in a simple environment with decent error > messages if something is or goes wrong. No they are not. One more time for the really thick headed; BASIC is STILL available for free, you just have to down load it. Yes, the current free BASIC has more features the the version from 27 years ago. No, no one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to use those features. > Another option: Download Linux and tell Microsoft to pound sand. You still have to download programming languages for almost all Linux distributions that are not targeted at being servers and even then you still might depending on what language you want. Perl is the only language I can think of that is automatically included with all Unix/Linux OS distributions these days. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-19 11:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bbb13ff3-0903-4afb-a29e-99e1d2916c79@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #534071 |
On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 1:46:06 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 05:40:24 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > > >>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Your $$30 calculator wouldn't have a disk drive to store the program in > >>> a convenient form. Nor would it help you email your program to others. > >> > >>Irrelevant to the main arguement that there are lots of free languages > >>available. > > > > Also important: Microsoft took something away that was useful to some > > and traditionally included in all their OS releases until recently. > > If by recently you mean 27 years ago. He he... I do the age old jokes around here. So stop that! > And one more time for the very thick headed, Microsoft still supplies > a version of BASIC as a free download. > > >>> The OS comes with gigabytes of files. Why can't they include another > >>> 100 kb file? > >> > >>The same reason they don't come with every application that exists. Often, I wonder, why can't I just download the entire WWW, then read offline? I must have too much time on my hands to ponder such quests. > >>> Do you use all the functions in Excel? > >>> > >>> Should the IMCOS function be removed because 99% of Excel users don't > >>> need it? > >> > >>Excel is an application, not an operating system. Excel, all of MSOffice, are for suckers and suckretaries. Spell check? AnyWhoHow... using them pays well for those allowed to be hired. > >>> Windows comes with CSCRIPT, but the PRINT statement in BASIC is more > >>> flexible and easier to type than "wscript.echo." > >> > >>PHP: echo or print. > >> > >>Perl: print. > > > > ... but don't forget the semicolons at the end of each line. > > In BASIC, don't forget the LET in front of every assignment. > > In BASIC, don't forget the GOSUB to call a subroutine. These days, 2015, everyone ought start with Perl, Ruby, Python, or Swift. Always attempt Assembly, not that I ever did. > >>What's your point? > > > > Summary began in the next line. > > > >>> Yes, we can go find and install FreeBASIC, but there is something to > >>> be said for common, simple porgamming language available on all > >>> Windows machines. > >> > >>Or the current version of Visual Studio from Microsoft or any number > >>of other interpreted languages that are all available as a download. > > > > ... which must be downloaded. And possibly installed ... if the user > > has rights to install the software. > > If the user does not have rights to install software, most likely it > is a corporate computer and the user has no business screwing around > with non-corporate activities. Moral: Be your own corporation, not some Corp.gov.state.job.pawn period! > If the user does not have rights to install software, it is guaranteed > the user doesn't own the computer and has no business screwing around > with the configuration. That sounds great. Until your best friend, call him Craig, brings a yet another Windows install CD disk and reformats your entire precious hard drive. He didn't even know there was a Linux partition there for safe keeping my meanderings. Anywho... Basically, never allow another person physical or cloud accessed to reinstall your applications or, especially, your OS. Too late!! You We Us They Must Trust The Cloud Handlers?! Fwiw, I also know one Xwife who simply threw away by trash my precious computer, hard drive and all. TMI? Go fuck yourselves. Lesson? The only meanderings of mine that remain are those that I posted to Usenet. That tiny subset of meanderings, I can still find. > >>> Unless you are a control-freak bastard in a corporate IT department. > >> > >>No one is forcing anyone to use the advanced features of any language. > > > > But they are prevented from using code they had already written (or > > received from others) in a simple environment with decent error > > messages if something is or goes wrong. > > No they are not. > > One more time for the really thick headed; BASIC is STILL available > for free, you just have to down load it. > > Yes, the current free BASIC has more features the the version from 27 > years ago. > > No, no one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to use those > features. > > > Another option: Download Linux and tell Microsoft to pound sand. > > You still have to download programming languages for almost all Linux > distributions that are not targeted at being servers and even then > you still might depending on what language you want. People, download cygwin, and just work with it on Windows. Grep cygwin. > Perl is the only language I can think of that is automatically included > with all Unix/Linux OS distributions these days. MACs are basically Unix/Linux. Look under the rectangle. Be discreet. > -- > Jim Pennino -- Mahipal
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sam Gordon" <invalid@examplll.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-19 11:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <n2l9lp$ga6$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #534076 |
Mahipal, 14 August 2015: A lot of posters do not like me. Apparently. By a lot, I mean a lot Lot LOT of people. I hurt their sensibilities. It's like I was once married to them all. Regardless... I am leaving Usenet now and forever. It's their playground and I obviously am not welcome. Also, I like Hitler a lot. A Lot. I'd like to kill the guy who killed Hitler. A Lot! So goodbye Goodbye GOODBYE. Nothing I post. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/sci.physics/UIfOYtrXEMc/DCrgBtWzmxUJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-19 12:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2be23544-b7f7-4f79-863e-fe503714f383@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #534077 |
On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 2:58:58 PM UTC-5, Sam Gordon wrote: > Mahipal, 14 August 2015: > > A lot of posters do not like me. Apparently. By a > lot, I mean a lot Lot LOT of people. I hurt their > sensibilities. It's like I was once married to them > all. Regardless... I am leaving Usenet now and > forever. It's their playground and I obviously > am not welcome. Also, I like Hitler a lot. A Lot. > I'd like to kill the guy who killed Hitler. A Lot! > > So goodbye Goodbye GOODBYE. > > Nothing I post. > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/sci.physics/UIfOYtrXEMc/DCrgBtWzmxUJ Sam Sam Sam... Gordon Gordon Gordon... no one alive on planet Earth wrote the crazy crap that you yourself did just now. Stalk away Sam! -- Mahipal
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-19 23:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti7t4bpq51kk1f5ebh9bs8rqdqqpmuudrm@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #534071 |
On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 18:37:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 05:40:24 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Your $30 calculator wouldn't have a disk drive to store the program in >>>> a convenient form. Nor would it help you email your program to others. >>> >>>Irrelevant to the main arguement that there are lots of free languages >>>available. >> >> Also important: Microsoft took something away that was useful to some >> and traditionally included in all their OS releases until recently. > >If by recently you mean 27 years ago. Windows 98 wasn't 27 years ago. >And one more time for the very thick headed, Microsoft still supplies >a version of BASIC as a free download. But it won't run the QBASIC programs I wrote 20 years ago, will it? >>>> The OS comes with gigabytes of files. Why can't they include another >>>> 100 kb file? >>> >>>The same reason they don't come with every application that exists. >>> >>>> Do you use all the functions in Excel? >>>> >>>> Should the IMCOS function be removed because 99% of Excel users don't >>>> need it? >>> >>>Excel is an application, not an operating system. Which is irrelevant to the attempted point that if 99% of users don't need it, M$ shouldn't include it. >>>> Windows comes with CSCRIPT, but the PRINT statement in BASIC is more >>>> flexible and easier to type than "wscript.echo." >>> >>>PHP: echo or print. >>> >>>Perl: print. >> >> ... but don't forget the semicolons at the end of each line. > >In BASIC, don't forget the LET in front of every assignment. > >In BASIC, don't forget the GOSUB to call a subroutine. QBASIC needed neither. >>>What's your point? >> >> Summary began in the next line. >> >>>> Yes, we can go find and install FreeBASIC, but there is something to >>>> be said for common, simple porgamming language available on all >>>> Windows machines. >>> >>>Or the current version of Visual Studio from Microsoft or any number >>>of other interpreted languages that are all available as a download. >> >> ... which must be downloaded. And possibly installed ... if the user >> has rights to install the software. > >If the user does not have rights to install software, most likely it >is a corporate computer and the user has no business screwing around >with non-corporate activities. Why do you assume that someone who wants to run a QBASIC program is necessarily engaged in non-corporate activities? >If the user does not have rights to install software, it is guaranteed >the user doesn't own the computer Which is why it would be handy for QBASIC to be pre-installed. >and has no business screwing around >with the configuration. Corporate IT control-freak bastards like to hear that. It's 11:30 pm. I need a program installed *now* to meet a deadline tomorrow morning. And I have no business installing a program that will allow me to get my work done? Bullshit! >>>> Unless you are a control-freak bastard in a corporate IT department. >>> >>>No one is forcing anyone to use the advanced features of any language. >> >> But they are prevented from using code they had already written (or >> received from others) in a simple environment with decent error >> messages if something is or goes wrong. > >No they are not. Yes, they are. Many newer BASICs are infested with syntax that resembles object-oriented crap with methods, properties, etc. And the user is required to write wrappers that set up graphics screens, or console modes, etc. >One more time for the really thick headed; BASIC is STILL available >for free, you just have to down load it. Many flavors of BASIC are available for free. A program written in one dialect probably won't run without modification in another. >Yes, the current free BASIC has more features the the version from 27 >years ago. > >No, no one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to use those >features. Incompatibilities between BASIC dialects are a problem. If the same dialect was available on all Windows machines, like it was more recently than 27 years ago, it would be easier for people to share simple programs. You don't want to. Fine. Others do. Microsoft made it more difficult than it was. >> Another option: Download Linux and tell Microsoft to pound sand. > >You still have to download programming languages for almost all Linux >distributions that are not targeted at being servers and even then >you still might depending on what language you want. > >Perl is the only language I can think of that is automatically included >with all Unix/Linux OS distributions these days. Which is irrelevant to the *change* made by Microsoft.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-20 07:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gbu2ic-qpn.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #534160 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 18:37:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 05:40:24 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Your $30 calculator wouldn't have a disk drive to store the program in >>>>> a convenient form. Nor would it help you email your program to others. >>>> >>>>Irrelevant to the main arguement that there are lots of free languages >>>>available. >>> >>> Also important: Microsoft took something away that was useful to some >>> and traditionally included in all their OS releases until recently. >> >>If by recently you mean 27 years ago. > > Windows 98 wasn't 27 years ago. The last update to Quick Basic was. >>And one more time for the very thick headed, Microsoft still supplies >>a version of BASIC as a free download. > > But it won't run the QBASIC programs I wrote 20 years ago, will it? I doubt any QBASIC program written 20 years ago is worth running, but if it were, does the word 'porting' mean anything to you? > >>>>> The OS comes with gigabytes of files. Why can't they include another >>>>> 100 kb file? >>>> >>>>The same reason they don't come with every application that exists. >>>> >>>>> Do you use all the functions in Excel? >>>>> >>>>> Should the IMCOS function be removed because 99% of Excel users don't >>>>> need it? >>>> >>>>Excel is an application, not an operating system. > > Which is irrelevant to the attempted point that if 99% of users don't > need it, M$ shouldn't include it. I don't know who 'M$' is; is this an attempt to be funny? That Excel is an application, not an operating system is very relevant. As Excel is an application that costs money, it behooves the maker to make it as widely applicable as possible to attract the widest possible sales base. There is zero incentive for the deliverer of an OS to include everything that is a free download. >>>>> Windows comes with CSCRIPT, but the PRINT statement in BASIC is more >>>>> flexible and easier to type than "wscript.echo." >>>> >>>>PHP: echo or print. >>>> >>>>Perl: print. >>> >>> ... but don't forget the semicolons at the end of each line. >> >>In BASIC, don't forget the LET in front of every assignment. >> >>In BASIC, don't forget the GOSUB to call a subroutine. > > QBASIC needed neither. > > >>>>What's your point? >>> >>> Summary began in the next line. >>> >>>>> Yes, we can go find and install FreeBASIC, but there is something to >>>>> be said for common, simple porgamming language available on all >>>>> Windows machines. >>>> >>>>Or the current version of Visual Studio from Microsoft or any number >>>>of other interpreted languages that are all available as a download. >>> >>> ... which must be downloaded. And possibly installed ... if the user >>> has rights to install the software. >> >>If the user does not have rights to install software, most likely it >>is a corporate computer and the user has no business screwing around >>with non-corporate activities. > > Why do you assume that someone who wants to run a QBASIC program is > necessarily engaged in non-corporate activities? Because I have common sense. >>If the user does not have rights to install software, it is guaranteed >>the user doesn't own the computer > > Which is why it would be handy for QBASIC to be pre-installed. Handy for who? No one with any sense in the corporate world would use a language like QBASIC in this day and age. >>and has no business screwing around >>with the configuration. > > Corporate IT control-freak bastards like to hear that. As corporations own their computers, they are well in their rights to control them. If you don't like that, buy your own computer. You might also see someone about why you have problems with authority. > It's 11:30 pm. I need a program installed *now* to meet a deadline > tomorrow morning. And I have no business installing a program that > will allow me to get my work done? That is called piss poor planning on your part. If the company were paying you to write software, they would have given you the tools needed. > Bullshit! > >>>>> Unless you are a control-freak bastard in a corporate IT department. >>>> >>>>No one is forcing anyone to use the advanced features of any language. >>> >>> But they are prevented from using code they had already written (or >>> received from others) in a simple environment with decent error >>> messages if something is or goes wrong. >> >>No they are not. > > Yes, they are. Nope, only ancient code for a language long dead. Again, if you insist on BASIC, there are still many free BASICS available for download. And again, does the word 'porting' mean anything to you? > Many newer BASICs are infested with syntax that resembles > object-oriented crap with methods, properties, etc. And many are not. > And the user is required to write wrappers that set up graphics > screens, or console modes, etc. Utter nonsens. >>One more time for the really thick headed; BASIC is STILL available >>for free, you just have to down load it. > > Many flavors of BASIC are available for free. A program written in one > dialect probably won't run without modification in another. And again, does the word 'porting' mean anything to you? >>Yes, the current free BASIC has more features the the version from 27 >>years ago. >> >>No, no one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to use those >>features. > > Incompatibilities between BASIC dialects are a problem. If the same > dialect was available on all Windows machines, like it was more > recently than 27 years ago, it would be easier for people to share > simple programs. One of the big reasons that old BASIC is obsolete is that it is incapable of doing anything that is usefull in the modern world. Why do you think the time and money was put into developing things like the currently support version of BASIC that Microsoft offers for free? > You don't want to. Fine. Others do. Microsoft made it more difficult > than it was. I don't want to what? I use lots of code written by other people, but none of it is in BASIC. >>> Another option: Download Linux and tell Microsoft to pound sand. >> >>You still have to download programming languages for almost all Linux >>distributions that are not targeted at being servers and even then >>you still might depending on what language you want. >> >>Perl is the only language I can think of that is automatically included >>with all Unix/Linux OS distributions these days. > > Which is irrelevant to the *change* made by Microsoft. By change I take it you mean they no longer support an obsolete and crippled language? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-20 09:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <db8oh7F5tt3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #534173 |
On 11/20/2015 2:22 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > I don't know who 'M$' is; is this an attempt to be funny? http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=M%24 Are you laughing yet? -- dvus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-20 17:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ev24ic-atr.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #534176 |
dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote: > On 11/20/2015 2:22 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> I don't know who 'M$' is; is this an attempt to be funny? > > http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=M%24 > Are you laughing yet? Puerile; no. I have seen Microsloth from other puerile posters. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-20 15:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <db9ea6Fbjj5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #534227 |
On 11/20/2015 12:47 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote: >> On 11/20/2015 2:22 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>> I don't know who 'M$' is; is this an attempt to be funny? >> >> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=M%24 >> Are you laughing yet? > > Puerile; no. > > I have seen Microsloth from other puerile posters. Spoil-sport! -- dvus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-20 21:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <3ih4ic-c5.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #534253 |
dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote: > On 11/20/2015 12:47 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote: >>> On 11/20/2015 2:22 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>> I don't know who 'M$' is; is this an attempt to be funny? >>> >>> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=M%24 >>> Are you laughing yet? >> >> Puerile; no. >> >> I have seen Microsloth from other puerile posters. > > Spoil-sport! I've always thought things like that were childish and branded the users of such as bigots; yes there are software bigots. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-21 08:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <dbb991Fp6jiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #534259 |
On 11/20/2015 4:56 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote: >> On 11/20/2015 12:47 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote: >>>> On 11/20/2015 2:22 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> I don't know who 'M$' is; is this an attempt to be funny? >>>> >>>> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=M%24 >>>> Are you laughing yet? >>> >>> Puerile; no. >>> >>> I have seen Microsloth from other puerile posters. >> >> Spoil-sport! > > I've always thought things like that were childish and branded the > users of such as bigots; yes there are software bigots. If I were such a bigot I'd be using Linux or OS X. I started with Commodore and moved to M$ when the Amiga became somewhat obsolete. -- dvus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-21 19:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gmr6ic-0v7.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #534349 |
dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote: > On 11/20/2015 4:56 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote: >>> On 11/20/2015 12:47 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote: >>>>> On 11/20/2015 2:22 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I don't know who 'M$' is; is this an attempt to be funny? >>>>> >>>>> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=M%24 >>>>> Are you laughing yet? >>>> >>>> Puerile; no. >>>> >>>> I have seen Microsloth from other puerile posters. >>> >>> Spoil-sport! >> >> I've always thought things like that were childish and branded the >> users of such as bigots; yes there are software bigots. > > If I were such a bigot I'd be using Linux or OS X. I started with > Commodore and moved to M$ when the Amiga became somewhat obsolete. My first toy computer was a MITS 8080 kit, my second an Apple II. In the day job I was dealing with VMS, RSTS, RT-11, and SunOS on various platforms. I always concidered the PC a toy until usefull applications appeared. Today's consumer computers are appliances to run applications. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web