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

Home » Digital Archaeology » Computer Arcana » Computer Folklore » Qbasic
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
Re: Qbasic [message #407135 is a reply to message #406894] Sat, 10 April 2021 16:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
greenaum is currently offline  greenaum
Messages: 57
Registered: February 2011
Karma: 0
Member
Actually I've got an addon for Mozilla that stops Javascript. What's amazing is that most websites still work! And usually better!
If not, it's just a little button to toggle it back on for a while. It's called NoScript.
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------

if love is a drug, then, ideally, it's a healing, healthful drug... it's
kind of like prozac is supposed to work (without the sexual side
effects and long-term damage to the brain and psyche)
Re: Qbasic [message #407139 is a reply to message #407135] Sat, 10 April 2021 17:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4369
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 20:55:50 GMT
greenaum@gmail.com wrote:

> if love is a drug, then, ideally, it's a healing, healthful drug... it's
> kind of like prozac is supposed to work (without the sexual side
> effects

Love without sexual side effects ? I'm agape at the thought.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Re: Qbasic [message #407140 is a reply to message #407139] Sat, 10 April 2021 18:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Quadibloc is currently offline  Quadibloc
Messages: 4247
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 4:00:02 PM UTC-6, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 20:55:50 GMT
> gree...@gmail.com wrote:

>> if love is a drug, then, ideally, it's a healing, healthful drug... it's
>> kind of like prozac is supposed to work (without the sexual side
>> effects

> Love without sexual side effects ? I'm agape at the thought.

Now *that's* a pun!

John Savard
Re: Qbasic [message #407150 is a reply to message #407135] Sat, 10 April 2021 20:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charlie Gibbs is currently offline  Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 4971
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2021-04-10, greenaum@gmail.com <greenaum@gmail.com> wrote:

> Actually I've got an addon for Mozilla that stops Javascript.
> What's amazing is that most websites still work! And usually better!
> If not, it's just a little button to toggle it back on for a while.
> It's called NoScript.

I use it myself. Unfortunately, the one on my laptop is a little
overzealous, and many web sites have trouble displaying at all.
I'll have to dial it back a bit.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | They don't understand Microsoft
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | has stolen their car and parked
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | a taxi in their driveway.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Mayayana
Re: Qbasic [message #407151 is a reply to message #407139] Sat, 10 April 2021 20:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charlie Gibbs is currently offline  Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 4971
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2021-04-10, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 20:55:50 GMT
> greenaum@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> if love is a drug, then, ideally, it's a healing, healthful drug... it's
>> kind of like prozac is supposed to work (without the sexual side
>> effects
>
> Love without sexual side effects ? I'm agape at the thought.

<snicker>

Sex without love is an empty feeling, but
as empty feelings go it's one of the best.
-- Woody Allen

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | They don't understand Microsoft
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | has stolen their car and parked
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | a taxi in their driveway.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Mayayana
Re: Qbasic [message #407166 is a reply to message #407134] Sun, 11 April 2021 10:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: greymaus

On 2021-04-10, greenaum@gmail.com <greenaum@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 06:34:05 -0400, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> sprachen:
>
>> That might have been crowned, at least at the European market, with the
>> Amstrad PCW from 1985 to 1998 (making the probably last commercial
>> available Z80 computer in 1998 running CP/M). The ads targeted
>> technophobes to get into computing <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amstrad_PCW>.
>>
>> All machines came with monitor and most models had a printer. Some early
>> models had an odd 3" floppy drive though.
>
> All models had a printer, the brains of which were in the computer. The printer just contained the mechanical bits. Either a
> dot-matrix or the more expensive daisywheel. They came with a monitor because that's where the computer was, in the monitor. And
> you got single or twin of those weird 3" drives that Amstrad must have found a skip full of. He used them because they were cheap.
> I had to repair one in a Spectrum +3 once, made by Amstrad so I assume it's the same model floppy drive. The disk is spun by a DC
> motor, like you'd get in a toy race car, driving a rubber belt to the spindle. Over time the belts de-rubberise and go brittle,
> then snap. I can't remember if there was a rotary encoder on the drive, or if it relied on the disk to do that. Knowing Amstrad,
> probably the disk.
>
> All of them had the 3" drive. Some users fitted a second 3.5" drive you could get third-party in magazines. The advantage being
> more reliable I suppose, as well as the blank disks being cheaper.
>
> It was really meant as a stand-alone word processor with no compatibility with any other computers whatsoever. As least it was so
> intended. There were a couple of games made for it, but really it's user base was people who really didn't have a clue about
> computers, and didn't want to learn. It did extremely well, my mum had one and mastered it pretty much. That's saying a lot,
> really! The word processor ran on bare metal, the CP/M disk was more of an afterthought, or a future option. I bet most people
> never even took it out of the box.
>
> The PCB inside them was small and simple. Basically the Z80, RAM, an 8041 to control the printer, and an ASIC.
>
> The later version, the PCW16, was a different design. Here, 16 refers to MHz, not bits. The clock speed of it's CPU... a Z80!
> Amstrad also put a Z80 in charge of their awful version of the Apple Newton tablet thing. And their failed Emailer phone. They
> really knew what they liked and stuck with it, even 20 years past it's sell-by date while Tamagotchi were running more powerful
> CPUs in kids' pockets.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------

I remember the Amstrad, very simple and reliable, Sugar (the owner) had previously been known
known for low-quality hifi. A lot of people had the computer, people who
knew or cared little for computers before. Vague memory of the word
processor being called Locoscript. Lots of small business had them.

I remember going into a computer shop (as in shop) where a man had
brought in his Amstrad to be cleaned and repaired, and the the salesman
was trying, as usual, to sell him a Microsoft junk machine. The old Amstrad
was incredibly dirty. I never heard of the extra 3.5 drive. Is that so
long ago?.

Alan Sugar was not a man to disagree with,

greymausg@mail
Re: Qbasic [message #407167 is a reply to message #407139] Sun, 11 April 2021 10:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: greymaus

On 2021-04-10, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 20:55:50 GMT
> greenaum@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> if love is a drug, then, ideally, it's a healing, healthful drug... it's
>> kind of like prozac is supposed to work (without the sexual side
>> effects
>
> Love without sexual side effects ? I'm agape at the thought.
>
Good!
Re: Qbasic [message #407369 is a reply to message #406894] Mon, 19 April 2021 16:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
greenaum is currently offline  greenaum
Messages: 57
Registered: February 2011
Karma: 0
Member
Do you really need to compile your Qbasic programs? Any computer that's still breathing should be able to run interpreted faster
than you can blink.

On the subject... sorta... is there a free C compiler that will run on Windows 8.1?

I used DJGPP back in the day, which was a protected-mode DOS compiler. Compiled programs would run on DOS with a DOS extender,
DPMI, or under Windows console mode. I got graphics by just writing to the old-fashioned address for VGA RAM, using a function
with a very long name that specifically allowed that, writing to fixed physical addresses. Of course, Windows would trap that, and
convert it to however it wanted to do things, so it worked in a window fine just like old DOS games do.

There was probably a better way of doing things than that, but I kept a buffer and just flushed it through to VGA RAM once I'd
finished that frame's business, so it was only 60 or so calls a second, something Windows could keep up with. From my buffer, to a
buffer Windows kept, through Windows's rendering, up to the actual screen RAM. Then down the VGA pipe to the monitor.

Anyway that's irrelevant! Is there a good free C compiler that can write stuff for Windows?

I heard MS's own compiler is free to use, and your compiled programs are your own property. But I KNOW it's going to be gigantic
and horrible and quirky... I learned C on a Bull mini running System V, back in the early 1990s (which was obsolete even then)
(but we got it so we could also learn... COBOL!). Real Wyse terminals and everything, serial cables snaking through the ceiling.
Great fun! What I'd give to have that again, and somewhere to keep it.

So my C experience is Unix-based. I know PC hardware too, and I can tolerate speaking to Windows in the manner of two bitter
divorcees talking through their lawyers. Any recommendations? DJGPP fossilised a couple of decades ago, site just stopped being
updated. Shame, I bet it wasn't an easy project to port Unix C to something to run under DOS / Windows. Maybe he got sick of
having to deal with Windows while writing a lovely project to protect all us more refined souls from having to do it.


------------------------------------------------------------ ------------

if love is a drug, then, ideally, it's a healing, healthful drug... it's
kind of like prozac is supposed to work (without the sexual side
effects and long-term damage to the brain and psyche)
Re: Qbasic [message #407370 is a reply to message #407140] Mon, 19 April 2021 16:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
greenaum is currently offline  greenaum
Messages: 57
Registered: February 2011
Karma: 0
Member
Hey John! Just to say, I've loved your site for years! The stuff with the alternate colour filters, I never actually thought of
using yellow, magenta, and white (IIRC), but it makes perfect sense and allows twice the light through! At no cost! And all your
other meanderings...

I'm sure we all have idle thoughts but you've organised them into a website, and either done the research or had the knowledge
anyway, to carry them through into something scientifically accurate. So the depth AND breadth of it are amazing.

Really, great site, can't say it enough. Thanks mate! I came across it years ago, I think from your posting here, though I've no
idea what on, it'll have been like 20 years or so. Glad you liked the sig. It's a genuine quote, someone innocently posted it on
Usenet on a thread that was something pondering "is love a drug?". All innocent of the wisdom of Prof Bryan Ferry.

As a critique of the dodgy SSRIs and the whole philosophical arguments over them in the 1990s, as well as the scientific ones
(SSRIs improved something like 55% of cases, placebo improved 50%), and the huge amount of money the SSRIs earned, it's sort-of
naively on-point. But then yeah it applies to love equally well! The poster started off innocently then inadvertently summed it
all up!

In my life I've had experiences of both substances, SSRIs and love, and I couldn't tell you which was worse (regarding sexual
side-effects and long-term damage to the brain and psyche!)

So yeah, if you're interested... it's a genuine, innocent quote! Which is why I fell about laughing when I read it, and had to
snaffle it for a sig. Much credit to the originator but my Usenet records from back then are corrupted or missing. Back then
removing 30MB of comments for the disk space was worth doing, and necessary. And now, ironically, when you could fit terabytes of
micro-SD card up your nose, when TB hard drives and SSDs are dirt cheap, Usenet went quiet and there's nothing to save!

Damn ISPs dropping Usenet is what's to blame, though now we don't even really have ISPs any more in that sense. Now it's just an
IP connection like gas or water, you don't get "services" or really an "account", just a login and password. My old Demon account
had free web space, and good Usenet service complete with a whole coterie of dickheads around the Demon local groups, real
middle-aged nerds of the obnoxious type, and yes many of them were sysadmins for a living, gods help their poor users.

Still, having once had a Demon account makes me old-school in my mind. It wasn't a login with a terminal emulator, it was PPP (I
had to look that up!), but old-enough skool that the Internet was still great. The worst, by which I also mean stupidest, we had
to deal with was AOL! Then WebTV, but even they were pretty polite and bearable, somehow logging onto Usenet with a screen that
wouldn't scroll downwards! Now look at the net! Worse than we ever could have imagined, the worst of stupidity, capitalism, and
herd instinct. You couldn't do "Kook Of The Month" on Faecebook cos a bigger winner than anything Usenet ever witnessed pops up
every 15 seconds.

What the hell was I talking about!? Glad you liked my sig, mate! Good website you got there, Quadibloc!

------------------------------------------------------------ ------------

if love is a drug, then, ideally, it's a healing, healthful drug... it's
kind of like prozac is supposed to work (without the sexual side
effects and long-term damage to the brain and psyche)
Re: Qbasic [message #407372 is a reply to message #407369] Mon, 19 April 2021 17:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 20:22:20 GMT, greenaum@gmail.com wrote:

> Do you really need to compile your Qbasic programs? Any computer that's still breathing should be able to run interpreted faster
> than you can blink.
>
> On the subject... sorta... is there a free C compiler that will run on Windows 8.1?
>
> I used DJGPP back in the day, which was a protected-mode DOS compiler. Compiled programs would run on DOS with a DOS extender,
> DPMI, or under Windows console mode. I got graphics by just writing to the old-fashioned address for VGA RAM, using a function
> with a very long name that specifically allowed that, writing to fixed physical addresses. Of course, Windows would trap that, and
> convert it to however it wanted to do things, so it worked in a window fine just like old DOS games do.
>
> There was probably a better way of doing things than that, but I kept a buffer and just flushed it through to VGA RAM once I'd
> finished that frame's business, so it was only 60 or so calls a second, something Windows could keep up with. From my buffer, to a
> buffer Windows kept, through Windows's rendering, up to the actual screen RAM. Then down the VGA pipe to the monitor.
>
> Anyway that's irrelevant! Is there a good free C compiler that can write stuff for Windows?
>
> I heard MS's own compiler is free to use, and your compiled programs are your own property. But I KNOW it's going to be gigantic
> and horrible and quirky... I learned C on a Bull mini running System V, back in the early 1990s (which was obsolete even then)
> (but we got it so we could also learn... COBOL!). Real Wyse terminals and everything, serial cables snaking through the ceiling.
> Great fun! What I'd give to have that again, and somewhere to keep it.
>
> So my C experience is Unix-based. I know PC hardware too, and I can tolerate speaking to Windows in the manner of two bitter
> divorcees talking through their lawyers. Any recommendations? DJGPP fossilised a couple of decades ago, site just stopped being
> updated. Shame, I bet it wasn't an easy project to port Unix C to something to run under DOS / Windows. Maybe he got sick of
> having to deal with Windows while writing a lovely project to protect all us more refined souls from having to do it.

What are your specific requirements? Do you want to create
Windows-native applications? Or do you want to create applications
that run on both Windows and Unix?

If the former, go with Microsoft--any other choice is going to be
swimming upriver. If the latter, go with GCC in one form or another.

Both are rather large.

Note that Microsoft's license allows unlimited open source development
and limited commercial development (the idea is that once your startup
starts making real money they expect to get paid).
Re: Qbasic [message #409024 is a reply to message #406749] Wed, 16 June 2021 15:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
hancock4 is currently offline  hancock4
Messages: 6736
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Saturday, March 27, 2021 at 11:31:17 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:


> It should be just possible to install and run old Windows 3.1 programs, or old
> Windows 95 programs with 16-bit installers, on modern computers running
> Windows and have them work perfectly and seamlessly. Why is that so hard
> to understand?

Yes.

It sucks my Windows 10 machine won't run old stuff. Admittedly, I have little use for
BASIC these days, but once in a while I'd like to crank up the QBASIC that came with DOS.
I think it should be supported.

IBM managed to support 1401 Autocoder for 50 years.
Re: Qbasic [message #409025 is a reply to message #409024] Wed, 16 June 2021 15:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Thomas Koenig

undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> schrieb:
> On Saturday, March 27, 2021 at 11:31:17 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>
>> It should be just possible to install and run old Windows 3.1 programs, or old
>> Windows 95 programs with 16-bit installers, on modern computers running
>> Windows and have them work perfectly and seamlessly. Why is that so hard
>> to understand?
>
> Yes.
>
> It sucks my Windows 10 machine won't run old stuff. Admittedly, I have little use for
> BASIC these days, but once in a while I'd like to crank up the QBASIC that came with DOS.
> I think it should be supported.

You can always use dosemu.
Re: Qbasic [message #409033 is a reply to message #409025] Wed, 16 June 2021 17:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charlie Gibbs is currently offline  Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 4971
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2021-06-16, Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:

> undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> schrieb:
>
>> On Saturday, March 27, 2021 at 11:31:17 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>
>>> It should be just possible to install and run old Windows 3.1
>>> programs, or old Windows 95 programs with 16-bit installers,
>>> on modern computers running Windows and have them work perfectly
>>> and seamlessly. Why is that so hard to understand?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> It sucks my Windows 10 machine won't run old stuff. Admittedly, I
>> have little use for BASIC these days, but once in a while I'd like
>> to crank up the QBASIC that came with DOS. I think it should be
>> supported.

But then how could M$ sell you new software and force you to buy
new hardware in the bargain?

> You can always use dosemu.

I run XP under VirtualBox on my Linux boxes. MS-DOS programs run
just fine. I still fire up GWBASIC for quick-and-dirty jobs.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | They don't understand Microsoft
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | has stolen their car and parked
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | a taxi in their driveway.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Mayayana
Re: Qbasic [message #409037 is a reply to message #409033] Wed, 16 June 2021 19:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Bob Eager

On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 21:14:48 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> I run XP under VirtualBox on my Linux boxes. MS-DOS programs run just
> fine. I still fire up GWBASIC for quick-and-dirty jobs.

I just run PCDOS 7.0 under VirtualBox!

--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Re: Qbasic [message #409047 is a reply to message #311288] Thu, 17 June 2021 01:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Bob Eager

On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 22:27:24 -0400, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:

> On 16 Jun 2021 23:21:47 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 21:14:48 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> I run XP under VirtualBox on my Linux boxes. MS-DOS programs run just
>>> fine. I still fire up GWBASIC for quick-and-dirty jobs.
>
> There is dosbox for Linux. Ran all DOS apps here I threw at it.
>
>> I just run PCDOS 7.0 under VirtualBox!
>
> Suppose you can still boot pure DOS on a modern machine?

You can boot it if you have diskettes. Using a CDROM is problematical
because a modern one will be SATA.



--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Re: Qbasic [message #409048 is a reply to message #407372] Thu, 17 June 2021 02:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Quadibloc is currently offline  Quadibloc
Messages: 4247
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 3:25:55 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 20:22:20 GMT, gree...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Do you really need to compile your Qbasic programs? Any computer that's still breathing should be able to run interpreted faster
>> than you can blink.

Oddly enough, I cannot find the post to which you replied, so I have to use your quotation of it
to reply to it.

It is true that today's computers are quite fast.

However, if I have been lazy, and I wrote a program in BASIC to do something which
really should have been done in compiled FORTRAN... then it is indeed quite possible
that the extra speed of compiling the BASIC code will come in handy.

John Savard
Re: Qbasic [message #409066 is a reply to message #311288] Thu, 17 June 2021 11:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 3893
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> writes:
> On 16 Jun 2021 23:21:47 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 21:14:48 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> I run XP under VirtualBox on my Linux boxes. MS-DOS programs run just
>>> fine. I still fire up GWBASIC for quick-and-dirty jobs.
>
> There is dosbox for Linux. Ran all DOS apps here I threw at it.
>
>> I just run PCDOS 7.0 under VirtualBox!
>
> Suppose you can still boot pure DOS on a modern machine?

Probably not. Many UEFI machines no longer provide the
classic BIOS interfaces.
Re: Qbasic [message #409068 is a reply to message #409037] Thu, 17 June 2021 13:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charlie Gibbs is currently offline  Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 4971
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2021-06-16, Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 21:14:48 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> I run XP under VirtualBox on my Linux boxes. MS-DOS programs run just
>> fine. I still fire up GWBASIC for quick-and-dirty jobs.
>
> I just run PCDOS 7.0 under VirtualBox!

Yes, but I'm developing Windows software too (mostly back-end stuff,
so I don't need the latest whiz-bang GUI facilities).

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | They don't understand Microsoft
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | has stolen their car and parked
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | a taxi in their driveway.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Mayayana
Re: Qbasic [message #409352 is a reply to message #409025] Sat, 26 June 2021 15:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
hancock4 is currently offline  hancock4
Messages: 6736
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 3:13:49 PM UTC-4, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> undefined Hancock-4 <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> schrieb:
>> On Saturday, March 27, 2021 at 11:31:17 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It should be just possible to install and run old Windows 3.1 programs, or old
>>> Windows 95 programs with 16-bit installers, on modern computers running
>>> Windows and have them work perfectly and seamlessly. Why is that so hard
>>> to understand?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> It sucks my Windows 10 machine won't run old stuff. Admittedly, I have little use for
>> BASIC these days, but once in a while I'd like to crank up the QBASIC that came with DOS.
>> I think it should be supported.

> You can always use dosemu.

No. Requires LINUX.
Re: Qbasic [message #409353 is a reply to message #409048] Sat, 26 June 2021 15:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
hancock4 is currently offline  hancock4
Messages: 6736
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 2:41:45 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 3:25:55 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 20:22:20 GMT, gree...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> Do you really need to compile your Qbasic programs? Any computer that's still breathing should be able to run interpreted faster
>>> than you can blink.
> Oddly enough, I cannot find the post to which you replied, so I have to use your quotation of it
> to reply to it.
>
> It is true that today's computers are quite fast.
>
> However, if I have been lazy, and I wrote a program in BASIC to do something which
> really should have been done in compiled FORTRAN... then it is indeed quite possible
> that the extra speed of compiling the BASIC code will come in handy.

Generally, modern machines will run interpreter QBASIC so fast that it will be adequate. But the compiled version, even the cheapo QB 4.5, still offered more features, was faster, and handled bigger programs and files. The professional 7.0 did even more.

Another advantage was that compiled programs could be shared with others. Of course, these days probably almost no one else could run them. And these days would anyone want to run DOS?

By the way, I haven't cranked up my Visual BASIC in a long time. Will that (Vers 4) run on a modern machine? Anyone use Visual BASIC?
Re: Qbasic [message #409355 is a reply to message #409352] Sat, 26 June 2021 16:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Thomas Koenig

undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> schrieb:
> On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 3:13:49 PM UTC-4, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> undefined Hancock-4 <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> schrieb:
>>> On Saturday, March 27, 2021 at 11:31:17 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> It should be just possible to install and run old Windows 3.1 programs, or old
>>>> Windows 95 programs with 16-bit installers, on modern computers running
>>>> Windows and have them work perfectly and seamlessly. Why is that so hard
>>>> to understand?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> It sucks my Windows 10 machine won't run old stuff. Admittedly, I have little use for
>>> BASIC these days, but once in a while I'd like to crank up the QBASIC that came with DOS.
>>> I think it should be supported.
>
>> You can always use dosemu.
>
> No. Requires LINUX.

You can try Dosbox.

That works well for me under Windows 10.
Re: Qbasic [message #409356 is a reply to message #409352] Sat, 26 June 2021 16:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Bob Eager

On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 12:48:32 -0700, undefined Hancock-4 wrote:

> On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 3:13:49 PM UTC-4, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> undefined Hancock-4 <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> schrieb:
>>> On Saturday, March 27, 2021 at 11:31:17 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> It should be just possible to install and run old Windows 3.1
>>>> programs, or old Windows 95 programs with 16-bit installers, on
>>>> modern computers running Windows and have them work perfectly and
>>>> seamlessly. Why is that so hard to understand?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> It sucks my Windows 10 machine won't run old stuff. Admittedly, I
>>> have little use for BASIC these days, but once in a while I'd like to
>>> crank up the QBASIC that came with DOS.
>>> I think it should be supported.
>
>> You can always use dosemu.
>
> No. Requires LINUX.

And last updated in 2007.

I have PCDOS 7 running happily in Virtualbox.

--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Re: Qbasic [message #409370 is a reply to message #409353] Sat, 26 June 2021 23:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 12:53:08 -0700 (PDT), undefined Hancock-4
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 2:41:45 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 3:25:55 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 20:22:20 GMT, gree...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>> Do you really need to compile your Qbasic programs? Any computer that's still breathing should be able to run interpreted faster
>>>> than you can blink.
>> Oddly enough, I cannot find the post to which you replied, so I have to use your quotation of it
>> to reply to it.
>>
>> It is true that today's computers are quite fast.
>>
>> However, if I have been lazy, and I wrote a program in BASIC to do something which
>> really should have been done in compiled FORTRAN... then it is indeed quite possible
>> that the extra speed of compiling the BASIC code will come in handy.
>
> Generally, modern machines will run interpreter QBASIC so fast that it will be adequate. But the compiled version, even the cheapo QB 4.5, still offered more features, was faster, and handled bigger programs and files. The professional 7.0 did even more.
>
> Another advantage was that compiled programs could be shared with others. Of course, these days probably almost no one else could run them. And these days would anyone want to run DOS?
>
> By the way, I haven't cranked up my Visual BASIC in a long time. Will that (Vers 4) run on a modern machine? Anyone use Visual BASIC?

A pretty full implementation of Visual Basic is built into just about
everything in Microsoft Office with extensions appropriate to whatever
it's built into.

The current Visual Basic is free until you make something like a
hundred thousand dollars in product sales.
>
>
>
Re: Qbasic [message #409372 is a reply to message #409370] Sun, 27 June 2021 01:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Quadibloc is currently offline  Quadibloc
Messages: 4247
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 9:34:22 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> The current Visual Basic is free until you make something like a
> hundred thousand dollars in product sales.

As it happens, I've just installed the free Visual Studio on my computer.

Having recently installed an Nvidia graphics card, temporarily replacing
the better (for gaming) Vega 56 that was there (not a new one; but
one from the soon-to-be-unsupported Kepler generation)...

I was very disappointed that Nvidia no longer makes the community
edition of the Windows version of the PGI Fortran compiler from its
web site. Having better tech and better software support (as opposed
to more raw power for basic gaming at the lowest price) is what Nvidia
is good at!

But apparently the Portland Group actually donated some of their source
to the Flang project (although classic Flang has been replaced with
something else that Nvidia wrote itself - if what Nvidia wrote itself was
better, why did they buy Portland Group???) and even if new Flang doesn't
generate code yet (although the page that said that appears to be out of
date) classic Flang did, and there's even a project to port it to Windows
(but I doubt it's gotten very far).

Still, I think Nvidia does make a free CUDA-capable C++ compiler available
(mainly for game development)... the Windows HPC package will be
available later, but there's this other thing I was able to download, and I
will try to review its contents... so I should still be able to access my 1.81
teraflops of FP64 goodness somehow.

John Savard
Re: Qbasic [message #409429 is a reply to message #409352] Mon, 28 June 2021 20:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 7906
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 3:13:49 PM UTC-4, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> undefined Hancock-4 <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> schrieb:
>>> On Saturday, March 27, 2021 at 11:31:17 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> It should be just possible to install and run old Windows 3.1 programs, or old
>>>> Windows 95 programs with 16-bit installers, on modern computers running
>>>> Windows and have them work perfectly and seamlessly. Why is that so hard
>>>> to understand?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> It sucks my Windows 10 machine won't run old stuff. Admittedly, I have little use for
>>> BASIC these days, but once in a while I'd like to crank up the QBASIC
>>> that came with DOS.
>>> I think it should be supported.
>
>> You can always use dosemu.
>
> No. Requires LINUX.
>

Or a virtual machine. I finally bit the bullet and installed Win XP in a VM
on Linux, for the occasional time I need it.

--
Pete
Re: Qbasic [message #409440 is a reply to message #406894] Tue, 29 June 2021 05:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Richmond

usenet@only.tnx (Questor) writes:

> Circling back to this thread's title, one of the old pieces of
> software on that older machine that sees regular and frequent use
> is... the version of Qbasic that came with MS-DOS 5.0. I use it to
> quickly and easily write smallish programs for complex calculations,
> solving word puzzles, making graphic gee-gaws, and even file
> utilities. It has the usual structured programming flow control
> constructs and a fairly complete set of functions for math, string
> manipulation, graphics, and file I/O. The big drawback of the free
> version is that programs cannot be compiled, only interpreted. (There
> was a pay version of Qbasic with more features, including the ability
> to create a stand-alone executable image.)

FreeBASIC has an option to compile the QBASIC dialect. It's something
like

fbc -lang qb
Re: Qbasic [message #409450 is a reply to message #409370] Tue, 29 June 2021 15:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
hancock4 is currently offline  hancock4
Messages: 6736
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 11:34:22 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 12:53:08 -0700 (PDT), undefined Hancock-4
> <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 2:41:45 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 3:25:55 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 20:22:20 GMT, gree...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> >Do you really need to compile your Qbasic programs? Any computer that's still breathing should be able to run interpreted faster
>>>> >than you can blink.
>>> Oddly enough, I cannot find the post to which you replied, so I have to use your quotation of it
>>> to reply to it.
>>>
>>> It is true that today's computers are quite fast.
>>>
>>> However, if I have been lazy, and I wrote a program in BASIC to do something which
>>> really should have been done in compiled FORTRAN... then it is indeed quite possible
>>> that the extra speed of compiling the BASIC code will come in handy.
>>
>> Generally, modern machines will run interpreter QBASIC so fast that it will be adequate. But the compiled version, even the cheapo QB 4.5, still offered more features, was faster, and handled bigger programs and files. The professional 7.0 did even more.
>>
>> Another advantage was that compiled programs could be shared with others.. Of course, these days probably almost no one else could run them. And these days would anyone want to run DOS?
>>
>> By the way, I haven't cranked up my Visual BASIC in a long time. Will that (Vers 4) run on a modern machine? Anyone use Visual BASIC?
> A pretty full implementation of Visual Basic is built into just about
> everything in Microsoft Office with extensions appropriate to whatever
> it's built into.
>
> The current Visual Basic is free until you make something like a
> hundred thousand dollars in product sales.

I haven't downloaded it, but apparently this is the source:
https://microsoft-visual-basic.en.softonic.com/
Re: Qbasic [message #409460 is a reply to message #409450] Tue, 29 June 2021 18:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 12:48:47 -0700 (PDT), undefined Hancock-4
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 11:34:22 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 12:53:08 -0700 (PDT), undefined Hancock-4
>> <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 2:41:45 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 3:25:55 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> > On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 20:22:20 GMT, gree...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > >Do you really need to compile your Qbasic programs? Any computer that's still breathing should be able to run interpreted faster
>>>> > >than you can blink.
>>>> Oddly enough, I cannot find the post to which you replied, so I have to use your quotation of it
>>>> to reply to it.
>>>>
>>>> It is true that today's computers are quite fast.
>>>>
>>>> However, if I have been lazy, and I wrote a program in BASIC to do something which
>>>> really should have been done in compiled FORTRAN... then it is indeed quite possible
>>>> that the extra speed of compiling the BASIC code will come in handy.
>>>
>>> Generally, modern machines will run interpreter QBASIC so fast that it will be adequate. But the compiled version, even the cheapo QB 4.5, still offered more features, was faster, and handled bigger programs and files. The professional 7.0 did even more.
>>>
>>> Another advantage was that compiled programs could be shared with others. Of course, these days probably almost no one else could run them. And these days would anyone want to run DOS?
>>>
>>> By the way, I haven't cranked up my Visual BASIC in a long time. Will that (Vers 4) run on a modern machine? Anyone use Visual BASIC?
>> A pretty full implementation of Visual Basic is built into just about
>> everything in Microsoft Office with extensions appropriate to whatever
>> it's built into.
>>
>> The current Visual Basic is free until you make something like a
>> hundred thousand dollars in product sales.
>
> I haven't downloaded it, but apparently this is the source:
> https://microsoft-visual-basic.en.softonic.com/

That's a source for _something_. Not something I would trust though.

Change directory to c:\windows\microsoft.net\framework then do a dir
/s vbc.exe and you should find it. There's also csc.exe which is a C#
compiler.

The recommended way to get it though is
<https://visualstudio.microsoft.com/> which gets you the current
versions of Visual Basic, C/C++, C#, and I forget what all else.

The one you want is "Community 2019".
Re: Qbasic [message #409871 is a reply to message #406907] Tue, 13 July 2021 13:07 Go to previous message
Daiyu Hurst is currently offline  Daiyu Hurst
Messages: 77
Registered: December 2012
Karma: 0
Member
On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 6:56:03 AM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> On 1 Apr 2021 06:31:15 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
> wrote:
>> On 2021-03-31, Questor wrote:
>>
>>> On 27 Mar 2021 18:00:43 -0300, Mike Spencer
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Charlie Gibbs writes:
>>>>
>>>> > I'm still upset that good old LIST.COM won't run on newer systems.
>>>> > (I run 32-bit XP under VirtualBox, so I'm OK there, though.)
>>>>
>>>> It runs on my Pentium 4 desktops under DOS but not under
>>>> Linux->X->DOESMU. Annoying. Haven't tried it on my newer laptop.
>>>>
>>>> Way back when I moved up to DOS from CP/M, I was also annoyed that
>>>> DBASE II from my Osborne woudn't run under a CP/M emulator. Only bit
>>>> of CP/M I wanted to preserve but apparently Adam coded in some
>>>> clever tricks to address the Osborne I hardware directly that an
>>>> emulator couldn't trap and implement.
>>>>
>>>> > Two words: planned obsolescence.
>>>
>>> The scheduled obsolescence these days is mostly with the browser, and
>>> specifically the encryption/security certificates. Even the most anodyne
>>> web sites use https today (thanks to Eric Snowden).
>>
>> There's one exception: neverssl.com. It's specifically designed to never
>> make your web browser use HTTPS, and thus it's the perfect initial place
>> to go when you're trying to connect to a hotel's wi-fi and need to let
>> its captive portal snag you so you can register. If you try to do this
>> with a web site that automatically promotes you to HTTPS, you'll never
>> connect - although Internet Explorer seems to incorporate some sort of
>> hack that (true to form) tries to make such connections M$-specific.
>>
>>> The certificates have expiration dates, and despite having a mechnism
>>> to import new certificates, the only obvious way to get them is to
>>> upgrade the browser. Eventually the new browser version requires an
>>> upgrade to operating system. The user is increasingly forced into
>>> upgrading their OS or faces losing access to web they may need.
>>
>> Or you can try to find a browser that can get access without bloat.
>> Seamonkey (with AdBlockPlus and NoScript) works well enough for me.
>> If it doesn't work on a particular site, I take a serious look at
>> whether I really need what that site has to offer; usually there
>> are alternatives.
>>
>>> There are also the whizzy new features that web site designers
>>> start adopting; the results are similar.
>>
>> Whizzy new features are the fastest way to drive me away from
>> a web site. I realize that this puts me in the minority, but
>> c'est la guerre.
>>
>> My philosophy is that systems should be ugly and boring.
>> Ugly as in devoid of whizzy new features that just get in
>> your way, and boring as in lacking surprises, many of which
>> can be unpleasant and/or time-consuming.
>>
>>>> Clinging doggedly to the trailing edge of technology...
>>>
>>> With gusto. One of my machines is older with older software. I'm happy with
>>> it -- it does everything I want, it's configured the way I like, and I can get
>>> tasks completed with no backsass. It's use for web browsing is extremely
>>> limited, but otherwise is one of my main "daily drivers."
>>
>> +1
>>
>>> Circling back to this thread's title, one of the old pieces of software on
>>> that older machine that sees regular and frequent use is... the version of
>>> Qbasic that came with MS-DOS 5.0. I use it to quickly and easily write
>>> smallish programs for complex calculations, solving word puzzles, making
>>> graphic gee-gaws, and even file utilities. It has the usual structured
>>> programming flow control constructs and a fairly complete set of functions
>>> for math, string manipulation, graphics, and file I/O. The big drawback
>>> of the free version is that programs cannot be compiled, only interpreted.
>>> (There was a pay version of Qbasic with more features, including the ability
>>> to create a stand-alone executable image.)
>>
>> I still keep a copy of GWBASIC around for quick hacks.
>> Never really got into QuirkBasic.
> FWIW, there's an open source Qbasic
> compiler--<https://www.qb64.org/portal/>.
>
> Whether it's any good or not I have no idea.

I used to be the editor of two Cobb Group journals, one for the Microsoft BASIC compiler, and one for QuickBASIC (1991-1992).

QB64 wasn't out yet there, and after I learned Python, I declared it would be my replacement for BASIC. And yet, I didn't stick to that. I do genealogical research, and used a very clunky old program under Windows. I found a better program, but wasn't fully ready to jump ship. Most genealogy software and web sites support a data exchange format called GEDCOM, and both of these programs did. But true to the gods of ANSI (Another Non-Standard Implementation), a lot of information exported wasn't being imported.

So I wrote a two-pass program that converted the Brothers Keeper GEDCOM to RootsMagic GEDCOM, using QB64. It worked very well, and was really fast. There were very few differences between Microsoft's products and this freeware.

So I guess that's a recommendation.
Pages (50): [ «    35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50]  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: Thank You Helpful Software!
Next Topic: Next FCUG meeting - Sunday, July 18, 2021 (confirmed)
Goto Forum:
  

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

Current Time: Wed Jul 28 01:20:30 EDT 2021

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.07214 seconds