Was there 2 versions of qb45???
Joseph Fenn
and floppies (5) of the old 5.25 inch floppies. I also have
what is apparently a different version on 3.5" disk. The main
difference I note is in the "RUN" crop down menu. If you
choose to compile a files that last version offers a screen
with only two compile choices
"make exe" and or "make exe and quit"
In the manuals that came with the old 5.25" floppies that same
drop down manual shows 3 choices in the same drop down tab.
"make exe" "make exe and exit" and "make Stand alone EXE"
The make exe one requires BRUN45.lib to also reside with the exe
in order for it run. The manual says the "stand alone" choice
creates a truly self running compiled version with no other
file required in same dir.
Joe (aka kilroy)
--
************************************
* jf...@lava.net *
* Ham KH6JF (since '37) *
* MARS (AARS) ABM6JF (since '40) *
* WW2 Vet ARMY SIGNAL CORPS *
************************************
Michael W. Cocke
There were three versions of QB 4.5. Not marked and denied by
Microsoft, there was the first (a), the second (b), which corrected a
few internal bugs, and the third (c), which implemented the very handy,
and therefore almost completely undocumented, cross-language linking
feature, whereby you could link OBJs written in QuickC, QuickPascal,
Quickbasic, and Masm. There was a 20-30 page addendum that shipped with
the c version that explained (inadaquately) how to use the feature - but
the clues contained could be followed.
Mike-
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note: My Email and web page addresses have changed!
The new email address is co...@catherders.com
The web page is at http://www.catherders.com
Because network administration is like herding cats.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
jdm
news:8d80hc$9ij$2...@mochi.lava.net...
> Could there have been two versions of qb4.5. I have manuals (2)
> and floppies (5) of the old 5.25 inch floppies. I also have
> what is apparently a different version on 3.5" disk. The main
> difference I note is in the "RUN" crop down menu. If you
> choose to compile a files that last version offers a screen
> with only two compile choices
> "make exe" and or "make exe and quit"
>
No, it's just a difference in options. For some hare-brained reason,
Microsoft thought us poor programmers were so addled by all the
complicated menu choices that they hid most of them from us in the
default menu option setting. If you look under display options, you
should see a choice marked "Show Full Menus" or something like that.
Thank God Boeing doesn't follow the same condescending philosophy in
cockpit design. "Oh, we don't want to confuse those poor pilots with
all these distracting instruments, so we'll just leave them out !!
What an idea !!"
John M.
WDS
>There were three versions of QB 4.5.
[snippage]
>On 14 Apr 2000 20:54:04 GMT, Joseph Fenn wrote:
>
>>Could there have been two versions of qb4.5.
[snip]
>> The main
>>difference I note is in the "RUN" crop down menu. If you
>>choose to compile a files that last version offers a screen
>>with only two compile choices
>> "make exe" and or "make exe and quit"
>>In the manuals that came with the old 5.25" floppies that same
>>drop down manual shows 3 choices in the same drop down tab.
>> "make exe" "make exe and exit" and "make Stand alone EXE"
>>The make exe one requires BRUN45.lib to also reside with the exe
>>in order for it run.
[snip again]
I am not sure about the multiple versions, but the behaviors you
describe for the Make EXE File screen are toggled by the setting of
the Full Menus option, in the Options drop-down menu. If Full Menus
is checked (turned on), then both EXE types are available; otherwise,
you don't get the choice.
--
Reply Addr:-->WDavid dot Simon at ATL dot frb dot org<--
------------...@Spammer.Trasher----------------
A. David Garza Marín
news:ahQJ4.45662$Ig.1...@news1.rdc1.tx.home.com...
> cockpit design. "Oh, we don't want to confuse those poor pilots with
> all these distracting instruments, so we'll just leave them out !!
> What an idea !!"
If you look at Office 2000 and Windows 2000, you can see something like
that...
Confusing, indeed...
--
¡SALUDOS desde México!
A. David Garza Marín
GMD MicroSistemas
MSDN RD
adgarza arroba spin punto com punto mx
adgarza at spin dot com dot mx
http://spin.com.mx/adgarza
Tom Hanlin
> There were three versions of QB 4.5. Not marked and denied by
> Microsoft, there was the first (a), the second (b), which corrected a
> few internal bugs, and the third (c), which implemented the very handy,
> and therefore almost completely undocumented, cross-language linking
> feature, whereby you could link OBJs written in QuickC, QuickPascal,
> Quickbasic, and Masm. There was a 20-30 page addendum that shipped with
> the c version that explained (inadaquately) how to use the feature - but
> the clues contained could be followed.
Well, pour on the gas and set me on fire, boys, my fingers are twitchin'.
Where to begin...
I believe you're thinking of QB 4.0. Cross-language capabilities were built
into the very first release of QB 4.0, if memory serves-- I was a library
vendor for QB at the time, and the changes caused major chaos in the design
of existing libraries. QB version 4.0a was a free update, as was (I think)
4.0b. After that, they got too embarrassed to give the fixes out for free,
or ran out of budget. One check on the version is the names of the library
files which, fooling around with "b" or "c" versions notwithstanding, went
from (say) BQLB40.LIB to BQLB41.LIB. There was no BQLB42.LIB, so there's no
direct correspondence to the letter versions.
QuickPascal was not a part of the cross-language linking feature. It used a
unique "unit" format, like unto Turbo Pascal, only different. Microsoft
Pascal, a different product, worked with the cross-language feature-- only
nobody used MS Pascal. QuickPascal was a reaction to Borland's Turbo Pascal,
which may not have been as powerful as Microsoft Pascal, but it was (a)
fully adequate for most practical purposes and (b) $25-$50 instead of the
$400 or so that Microsoft wanted for their compiler. Microsoft eventually
retaliated by releasing QuickPascal, which was not compatible with Microsoft
Pascal. Instead, it was a Turbo Pascal knock-off. It never succeeded very
well, but I suppose it scared Borland off balance (they [Borland] did good
work, but were generally financially on edge, due to their own dumb errors
in any number of respects). Quick Pascal's main claim to history was, as I
recall, that it offered the first color syntax coding in an IDE. Curiously,
Microsoft's language divisions never coordinated very well, and QP's color
coding never made it into QuickBASIC. Contrariwise, QB had a much more
convenient help system than QuickPascal. You couldn't point to one or the
other and say "this is more advanced".
[Inprise, nee Borland, still has one of the worst online help systems in the
world in Delphi, although Microsoft's help systems have likewise declined
immeasurably. Ask for help in a current MS product, and you're liable to get
slightly useful help, but for a completely different product than the one
you're actually using... and, of course, Inprise/Borland, having forgotten
their roots, charges as much as Microsoft these days. I'm just waiting to
see someone produce an excellent $50 version of Delphi or Visual Basic. The
market needs a new revolution. (Ghastly name, "Inprise", but rumor has it
they got embarrassed at the reputation of "Borland" and needed a quick
fix).]
QB 4.0 was a landmark product, although the thinking at the time was that it
was rushed to market to circumvent losses to Borland's Turbo BASIC (now
PowerBASIC's, eh, PowerBASIC): the QB 3.0 compiler was only reasonably
competitive with the Turbo BASIC compiler at the time, and Bill Gates has
always taken BASIC very seriously. The "sell this cool beta-release now"
approach was successful enough for QB 4.0 that Borland (way overextended, a
chronic problem of theirs) dropped Turbo BASIC not too long thereafter. And,
to this day, Microsoft is eager to sell "cool" beta releases of its products
as commercial products.
The current version of PowerBASIC for DOS whomps the heck out of QB 4.5, of
course, although the market would certainly be more interesting if Microsoft
hadn't dropped production on its DOS languages. PB/DOS 10.0 versus QB 10.0
would both be products that would rock the world. :-) As it stands,
PowerBASIC for DOS still supports many features that are just now finding
their way into Microsoft's latest Windows versions of BASIC, such as
pointers and virtual memory.
To the best of my knowledge, there was only a single QB 4.5 release, and
Microsoft never fixed any of the bugs in it. On the whole, though, it was
one of the most stable releases of any Microsoft BASIC, and didn't require
much bug fixing. The primary exception was in communications handling, which
retained some bugs left over since QB 1.0. Of Microsoft's later DOS
compilers, the one and only version of Visual Basic for DOS was buggy to the
extent that you'd have to be a dedicated masochist to use it.
As a final note, I'd like to mention that QuickBASIC itself would not exist
but for Borland. Microsoft's original BASIC compiler for the PC ran around
$400 for a very crude and nasty product. After Turbo Pascal shook 'em around
for a bit, Microsoft released QuickBASIC 1.0 for some $100-- and you'd hate
to use that product now, but it was the right response, and it helped make
both BASIC and Microsoft what they are today.
Anyway, that's a bit of history from the eyes of a long-time BASIC partisan.
Opinions expressed are mine, not those of my employer, my mother, or my
imaginary dog "Aardvark". Your consensual past may vary. :-)
Say, Mike, are you that same fellow who ran that terrific BBS back when?
Tell me how "Scrabble" relates to "garlic cookies" and I'll know it's you.
:-)
--
Thomas G. Hanlin III, Programmer At Large
home: www.tgh3.com - programming tools & libraries, games and things
work: www.powerbasic.com - DOS & Windows BASIC compilers & tools
Michael W. Cocke
>Say, Mike, are you that same fellow who ran that terrific BBS back when?
>Tell me how "Scrabble" relates to "garlic cookies" and I'll know it's you.
>:-)
Yeah, it's me. The scrabble door and the accidental chocolate chip
garlic cookie recipe.
FYI, the file archives from Central Core (including the basic
programming files) are available at www.catherders.com , and I think I
still have advbas 1.0 somewhere. 8-)>
Mike-
Tom Hanlin
> >Say, Mike, are you that same fellow who ran that terrific BBS back when?
> >Tell me how "Scrabble" relates to "garlic cookies" and I'll know it's
> >you. :-)
>
> Yeah, it's me. The scrabble door and the accidental chocolate chip
> garlic cookie recipe.
>
> FYI, the file archives from Central Core (including the basic
> programming files) are available at www.catherders.com , and I think I
> still have advbas 1.0 somewhere. 8-)>
Whew, shoot, Mike, I'm glad to hear you're still around. It's been too many
years. My eyes are running. You were the very best (and no doubt still are,
but Central Core / HC was rightly legendary, and I'm suddenly nostalgic for
a state-of-the-art 4.77MHz dual-floppy Compaq and a 2400-bps USRobotics
Courier). Kudos. And, heck, of course I'd be interested in ADVBAS 1.0 if
you've got it. Or any other fine antiques of mine :-)
Dare I ask about Ev?
Or indeed, the chocolate chip garlic cookie recipe? 8-)
Michael W. Cocke
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 12:43:51 GMT, Tom Hanlin wrote:
>On 28-Apr-2000, Michael W. Cocke <co...@catherders.com> wrote:
>
>> >Say, Mike, are you that same fellow who ran that terrific BBS back when?
>> >Tell me how "Scrabble" relates to "garlic cookies" and I'll know it's
>> >you. :-)
>>
>> Yeah, it's me. The scrabble door and the accidental chocolate chip
>> garlic cookie recipe.
>>
>> FYI, the file archives from Central Core (including the basic
>> programming files) are available at www.catherders.com , and I think I
>> still have advbas 1.0 somewhere. 8-)>
>
>Whew, shoot, Mike, I'm glad to hear you're still around. It's been too many
>years. My eyes are running. You were the very best (and no doubt still are,
>but Central Core / HC was rightly legendary, and I'm suddenly nostalgic for
>a state-of-the-art 4.77MHz dual-floppy Compaq and a 2400-bps USRobotics
>Courier). Kudos. And, heck, of course I'd be interested in ADVBAS 1.0 if
>you've got it. Or any other fine antiques of mine :-)
I've still got the 386/16 machines and the 33.6 modems that ran the
nodes, if you're interested. Also got the code and everything backed
up. You never know, this Internet thing might only be a passing fad.
I still use PBClone (and Qbserial) - mostly I code machine controls
nowadays.
>Dare I ask about Ev?
Don't worry - I won't tell her you called her that (she purely HATES
that). She's fine. She's asked me a few times if I can write some type
of scrabble game for www play.... I'm not sure how I'd do the scrabble
door in CGI, but I think I'll put a little thought into it.
>Or indeed, the chocolate chip garlic cookie recipe? 8-)
I swear, that was an accident. 8-)> But they weren't bad, actually.