Megalextoria
Retro computing and gaming, sci-fi books, tv and movies and other geeky stuff.

Home » Archive » net.micro.pc » Basic 2.1 documentation problem
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Basic 2.1 documentation problem [message #79013] Sun, 02 June 2013 23:11 Go to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: mccullou@ittral.UUCP (Clifford Mccullough)
Message-ID: <453@ittral.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Sep-84 08:29:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: ittral.453
Posted: Wed Sep 19 08:29:51 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 07:31:40 EDT
Lines: 31


Way back in February of this year, I purchased DOS 2.1 from an authorized
IBM distributer.  Unfortunately, there was nothing to upgrade my BASIC manual.
There was however a form to be filled out promising such an upgrade package.
I filled out the form, followed all the instructions, and mail everything
to the address indicated.  To make a short story long, the form said, "Please
wait 4 to 6 weeks for delivery."  I have waited 7 months and seen nothing!
I tried all the IBM 800 phone numbers I could find - it wasn't their area.
I tried the information operator in Wallingford CT - IBM has too many offices
in that area and long distances charges would soon outprice the original cost
of the DOS package!!  I tried mailing a nasty-gram to the same PO box - no
response.  I'm now working with the manager of the store that sold me the DOS
package but his IBM representative is not helping very much.  My last resort
will be to demand a refund from the store.  That will be futile because I want
DOS version 2.1.

My questions are:
- Am I just lucky, or have others had this problem?
- The form said the package (I hope to get eventually) will upgrade BASIC 1.1
  to BASIC 2.0.  Does anyone know of differences between BASIC 2.1 and 2.0?
  I know the file sizes are different.  I bought BASIC 2.1 and I deserve the
  documentation for it, not documentation for 2.0!!
- Does anyone know what is happening at PO Box 3160, Wallingford, CT 06494
  besides a big letter vacuum that sucks up request forms never to be hear
  from again?  I understand the same thing is being done at the same address
  for the new FORTRAN compiler.

Please respond directly with help or suggestions.

Cliff McCullough
ittvax!ittral!mccullou
Re: Basic 2.1 documentation problem [message #79043 is a reply to message #79013] Sun, 02 June 2013 23:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ac4 is currently offline  ac4
Messages: 5
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Junior Member
Message-ID: <1250@pucc-h>
Date: Mon, 24-Sep-84 16:29:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: pucc-h.1250
Posted: Mon Sep 24 16:29:08 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Sep-84 07:58:07 EDT
References: <453@ittral.UUCP>
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Lines: 31

Depending upon which version of DOS and BASIC you had previously,
you may not want the update information for the BASIC manual.
I bought my PC many moons ago with DOS 1.0 and basic BASIC!
Some time later, I acquired DOS 1.1 along with an update for
my BASIC manual.  So far, so good.

I skipped 2.0 ... I figured 2.1 would follow before I would get
around to really using any of the new stuff.  No problem there.
When I finally acquired 2.1, there was the form telling me that
I could update my BASIC 1.1 manual to reflect the new features
in BASIC 2.1.  I noticed when I went to send it in that they
seemed to be very fussy about the update being for BASIC 1.1 and
not for any other version.  When I finally received the package,
I discovered why:

	(BASIC 1.0) + (Update to 1.1) != (BASIC 1.1)

Somewhere along the line, they started printing a manual for
BASIC 1.1 which has quite a few differences from the manual you
get by updating your 1.0 manual to 1.1.  If you try to apply the
1.1 -> 2.1 update, you get in lots of trouble with page numbers
and contents that do not match.  I finally gave up ... fortunately,
I hardly ever use BASIC myself ... I just wanted my manual to be up
to date in case a consulting question came up.

By the way, as far as I can tell, there is no BASIC 2.0 or BASIC 2.1
manual ... yet!  There is just an update to BASIC 1.1 which is
apparently applicable to both 2.0 and 2.1.
-- 
Tom Putnam
{decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:ac4
Re: Basic 2.1 documentation problem [message #79052 is a reply to message #79013] Sun, 02 June 2013 23:11 Go to previous message
broehl is currently offline  broehl
Messages: 79
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Member
Message-ID: <1483@wateng.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 26-Sep-84 09:48:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: wateng.1483
Posted: Wed Sep 26 09:48:14 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Sep-84 04:45:05 EDT
References: <453@ittral.UUCP>, <1250@pucc-h>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 12

Worse yet, I went straight from 1.0 to 2.0 (skipping 1.1) and cannot
obtain a complete Basic manual!  I'm even willing to pay for one (despite
the fact that I almost never use Basic) just so I'll have the manual around
for reference.
Anyone from Microsoft or IBM out there?  There are probably significant
numbers of people who would pay money for a decent Basic manual with all
the pages and no duplication and a proper table of contents.


-- 
        -Bernie Roehl    (University of Waterloo)
	...decvax!watmath!wateng!broehl
  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: MS-DOS editor wanted
Next Topic: Re: Looking for VI or NROFF clones
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Thu Mar 28 20:05:10 EDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.11976 seconds