Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Qbasic
252 views
Skip to first unread message
Quadibloc
Mar 27, 2021, 11:31:17 AM3/27/21
to
On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 12:56:15 PM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> In any case, nobody has complained about the removal of vm86 mode
> in 64-bit other than you.
Well, maybe few people are _still_ complaining, but I'm sure that at the time
64-bit versions of Windows XP were first introduced, many people were unhappy
that they couldn't run many of their older programs any more.
DosBox and Qemu aren't really fully adequate solutions.
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?
Since the 286, which didn't allow backwards compatibility from protected mode,
was seen to be a mistake, which was corrected in the 386, AMD and Intel should
both have known better. Since true 32-bit programs can run _either_ on machines
that are in 64-bit mode, able to run 64-bit and 32-bit software, or in 32-bit mode, and
able to run 32-bit and 16-bit software, the operating system should be able, without
rebooting, to switch between those two modes at will. Naturally, if an interrupt happens
while in 32-bit mode, a switch to 64-bit mode would likely have to take place,
but there's no fundamental reason why that should even be a problem.
Everything gets restored when you return from an interrupt. So you have a status bit
for that...
John Savard
> In any case, nobody has complained about the removal of vm86 mode
> in 64-bit other than you.
Well, maybe few people are _still_ complaining, but I'm sure that at the time
64-bit versions of Windows XP were first introduced, many people were unhappy
that they couldn't run many of their older programs any more.
DosBox and Qemu aren't really fully adequate solutions.
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?
Since the 286, which didn't allow backwards compatibility from protected mode,
was seen to be a mistake, which was corrected in the 386, AMD and Intel should
both have known better. Since true 32-bit programs can run _either_ on machines
that are in 64-bit mode, able to run 64-bit and 32-bit software, or in 32-bit mode, and
able to run 32-bit and 16-bit software, the operating system should be able, without
rebooting, to switch between those two modes at will. Naturally, if an interrupt happens
while in 32-bit mode, a switch to 64-bit mode would likely have to take place,
but there's no fundamental reason why that should even be a problem.
Everything gets restored when you return from an interrupt. So you have a status bit
for that...
John Savard
Charlie Gibbs
Mar 27, 2021, 1:30:12 PM3/27/21
to
On 2021-03-27, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 12:56:15 PM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> In any case, nobody has complained about the removal of vm86 mode
>> in 64-bit other than you.
>
> Well, maybe few people are _still_ complaining, but I'm sure that at the time
> 64-bit versions of Windows XP were first introduced, many people were unhappy
> that they couldn't run many of their older programs any more.
I'm still upset that good old LIST.COM won't run on newer systems.
> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 12:56:15 PM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> In any case, nobody has complained about the removal of vm86 mode
>> in 64-bit other than you.
>
> Well, maybe few people are _still_ complaining, but I'm sure that at the time
> 64-bit versions of Windows XP were first introduced, many people were unhappy
> that they couldn't run many of their older programs any more.
(I run 32-bit XP under VirtualBox, so I'm OK there, though.)
> DosBox and Qemu aren't really fully adequate solutions.
>
> 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?
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | They don't understand Microsoft
\ / <cgi...@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
Mike Spencer
Mar 27, 2021, 5:06:09 PM3/27/21
to
Charlie Gibbs <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> 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.)
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.
Clinging doggedly to the trailing edge of technology...
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
anti...@math.uni.wroc.pl
Mar 27, 2021, 9:17:22 PM3/27/21
to
all hardware needed to run 16-bit VM programs (they had to include it
to be 100% compatible with existing 32-bit processors), yet in practice
you can not use it (since you want 64-bit operating system).
Of course, 16-bit VM is liabilty for Intel and AMD and they would
like to get rid of it. 286 showed them that they can not kill
16-bit mode in one step, so they invented more subtle solution.
Microsoft is helpful too: AFAIK 16-bit protected mode is compatible
with running 64-bit OS at hardware level, but Microsoft removed
support for 16-bit code from 64-bit OS, so all 16-bit codes
will sooner or later vanish. Well, 16-bit support is also liabilty
for Microsoft and they felt that dropping support will have
no bad effect on them (and it looks that they are right).
I like idea of being able to run old code. OTOH, it is hard to
recall when I used 16-bit programs. Around 2004 I did some
testing for compatiblity of 32-bit programs with DOS extenders,
which naturally involved running 16-bit programs. But I run
them only to make sure that my code was usable by people
who run DOS as their OS. Starting from 1991 my PC was
32-bit and from about 1993 I used 32-bit sysetm (Linux)
almost exclusively. So 16-bit x86 for me is mostly old
lore and having to use old hardware or emulator does not
look so bad...
--
Waldek Hebisch
Andreas Kohlbach
Mar 28, 2021, 5:57:32 AM3/28/21
to
On 27 Mar 2021 18:00:43 -0300, Mike Spencer wrote:
>
> Charlie Gibbs <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> 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.
May be due to different floppy formats?
>
> Charlie Gibbs <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> 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.
With the same emulator (MAME) I cannot load Kaypro floppies in an
Osborne, or Osborne floppies in an Kaypro. But they (used to) work in
their respective system.
--
Andreas
Dave Garland
Mar 28, 2021, 4:57:19 PM3/28/21
to
use one called UNIFORM. But IIRC, the dBase II that Osborne bundled
with their computers may have been gimmicked to prevent running on
other machines. Otherwise, nobody would have bought the pay version :)
Peter Flass
Mar 28, 2021, 6:54:42 PM3/28/21
to
>
> Everything gets restored when you return from an interrupt. So you have a status bit
> for that...
>
> John Savard
>
Pete
Dave Garland
Mar 29, 2021, 2:01:08 AM3/29/21
to
On 3/28/2021 5:37 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> But the Osborne Office-Suite was for my knowledge only available when you
> bought an Osborne computer. You couldn't just buy it elsewhere to run it
> on a Kaypro or other Z80 based computers.
>
I don't remember the "Office Suite". IIRC all the programs came on
separate discs and weren't integrated in any way.. My impression was
that Osborne went around and bought rights to whatever they could get
cheaply, to throw in. The early O2 I knew came with several dialects
of Basic, a PERT program, WordStar, dBaseII, SuperCalc, and probably a
few other things. Over time, the bundle seemed to change. After Oz
went down, I bought an O2 that was probably assembled from leftover
parts, I think it came with dBII but don't remember for sure (I might
have lifted a copy from the other Oz). I did buy an MSDOS copy of
dBII for another client.
> bought an Osborne computer. You couldn't just buy it elsewhere to run it
> on a Kaypro or other Z80 based computers.
>
I don't remember the "Office Suite". IIRC all the programs came on
separate discs and weren't integrated in any way.. My impression was
that Osborne went around and bought rights to whatever they could get
cheaply, to throw in. The early O2 I knew came with several dialects
of Basic, a PERT program, WordStar, dBaseII, SuperCalc, and probably a
few other things. Over time, the bundle seemed to change. After Oz
went down, I bought an O2 that was probably assembled from leftover
parts, I think it came with dBII but don't remember for sure (I might
have lifted a copy from the other Oz). I did buy an MSDOS copy of
dBII for another client.
Andreas Kohlbach
Mar 29, 2021, 1:17:59 PM3/29/21
to
On Mon, 29 Mar 2021 01:01:04 -0500, Dave Garland wrote:
>
> On 3/28/2021 5:37 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2021 15:57:16 -0500, Dave Garland wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, there were a couple of commercial format converters. I used to
>>> use one called UNIFORM. But IIRC, the dBase II that Osborne bundled
>>> with their computers may have been gimmicked to prevent running on
>>> other machines. Otherwise, nobody would have bought the pay version :)
>> But the Osborne Office-Suite was for my knowledge only available
>> when you
>> bought an Osborne computer. You couldn't just buy it elsewhere to run it
>> on a Kaypro or other Z80 based computers.
>>
> I don't remember the "Office Suite". IIRC all the programs came on
> separate discs and weren't integrated in any way..
Don't know where I got this term from now. I thought Wikipedia, but cannot
>
> On 3/28/2021 5:37 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2021 15:57:16 -0500, Dave Garland wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, there were a couple of commercial format converters. I used to
>>> use one called UNIFORM. But IIRC, the dBase II that Osborne bundled
>>> with their computers may have been gimmicked to prevent running on
>>> other machines. Otherwise, nobody would have bought the pay version :)
>> But the Osborne Office-Suite was for my knowledge only available
>> when you
>> bought an Osborne computer. You couldn't just buy it elsewhere to run it
>> on a Kaypro or other Z80 based computers.
>>
> I don't remember the "Office Suite". IIRC all the programs came on
> separate discs and weren't integrated in any way..
confirm that anymore. Might have it from
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundled_software> which states:
| A software bundle might include a word processor, spreadsheet, and
| presentation program into a single office suite.
and later on the same page:
| Early microcomputer companies varied in their decision to bundle
| software. BYTE in 1984 observed that "Kaypro apparently has
| tremendous buying and bargaining power", noting that the Kaypro 10
| came with both WordStar and Perfect Writer, plus "two spelling
| checkers, two spreadsheets, two communications programs and three
| versions of BASIC". Stating that year that a computer that weighs 30
| pounds "really isn't very portable", Creative Computing concluded
| that "the main reason that the Osborne was a success was not that it
| was transportable, but that it came with a pile of bundled
| software".
> My impression was that Osborne went around and bought rights to
> whatever they could get cheaply, to throw in. The early O2 I knew came
> with several dialects of Basic, a PERT program, WordStar, dBaseII,
> SuperCalc, and probably a few other things. Over time, the bundle
> seemed to change. After Oz went down, I bought an O2 that was probably
> assembled from leftover parts, I think it came with dBII but don't
> remember for sure (I might have lifted a copy from the other Oz). I did
> buy an MSDOS copy of dBII for another client.
for the Osborne lists
OS1MDM7.IMD OSB06_Adventure.TD0
OSB14_Basic_Games.TD0 OSBROM.IMD OSUTLSRC.IMD
history OSB01_CPM_System.TD0 OSB09_CPM_System.TD0
OSB15_Games.TD0 OSE-CPMA.TD0
OCCCBIOS.IMD OSB03_Wordstar.TD0 OSB10_Wordstar.TD0
OSB22_Cbasic_Mbasic.TD0 OSE-CPMB.TD0
OCCROM.IMD OSB04_Cbasic_Mbasic.TD0 OSB11_Supercalc.TD0
OSB28_Supercalc.TD0 OSE-CPMC.TD0
OCCUTIL.IMD OSB05_Dbase_II.TD0 OSB12_Dbase_II.TD0
OSBIOSSR.IMD OSROM13.IMD
--
Andreas
https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/
Questor
Mar 31, 2021, 2:42:35 AM3/31/21
to
On Mon, 29 Mar 2021 01:01:04 -0500, Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com>
wrote:
Osborne. But bundling was the term of art, and it refered more to what was
included when you bought the base machine. "But wait -- there's more... all at
one low price." Some manufacturers and/or dealers would add a primitive menu
system so that novice customers could start the different applications while
knowing next to nothing about CP/M commands.
wrote:
>On 3/28/2021 5:37 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>On Sun, 28 Mar 2021 15:57:16 -0500, Dave Garland wrote:
>>>
>>>On 3/28/2021 4:57 AM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>>On 27 Mar 2021 18:00:43 -0300, Mike Spencer wrote:
>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>May be due to different floppy formats?
>>>>With the same emulator (MAME) I cannot load Kaypro floppies in an
>>>>Osborne, or Osborne floppies in an Kaypro. But they (used to) work in
>>>>their respective system.
>>>>
>>>Yes, there were a couple of commercial format converters. I used to
>>>use one called UNIFORM. But IIRC, the dBase II that Osborne bundled
>>>with their computers may have been gimmicked to prevent running on
>>>other machines. Otherwise, nobody would have bought the pay version :)
>>
>>But the Osborne Office-Suite was for my knowledge only available when you
>>bought an Osborne computer. You couldn't just buy it elsewhere to run it
>>on a Kaypro or other Z80 based computers.
>>
>I don't remember the "Office Suite". IIRC all the programs came on
>separate discs and weren't integrated in any way.. My impression was
>that Osborne went around and bought rights to whatever they could get
>cheaply, to throw in.
I don't think there were any "integrated" office suites in the time of the
>>On Sun, 28 Mar 2021 15:57:16 -0500, Dave Garland wrote:
>>>
>>>On 3/28/2021 4:57 AM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>>On 27 Mar 2021 18:00:43 -0300, Mike Spencer wrote:
>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>May be due to different floppy formats?
>>>>With the same emulator (MAME) I cannot load Kaypro floppies in an
>>>>Osborne, or Osborne floppies in an Kaypro. But they (used to) work in
>>>>their respective system.
>>>>
>>>Yes, there were a couple of commercial format converters. I used to
>>>use one called UNIFORM. But IIRC, the dBase II that Osborne bundled
>>>with their computers may have been gimmicked to prevent running on
>>>other machines. Otherwise, nobody would have bought the pay version :)
>>
>>But the Osborne Office-Suite was for my knowledge only available when you
>>bought an Osborne computer. You couldn't just buy it elsewhere to run it
>>on a Kaypro or other Z80 based computers.
>>
>I don't remember the "Office Suite". IIRC all the programs came on
>separate discs and weren't integrated in any way.. My impression was
>that Osborne went around and bought rights to whatever they could get
>cheaply, to throw in.
Osborne. But bundling was the term of art, and it refered more to what was
included when you bought the base machine. "But wait -- there's more... all at
one low price." Some manufacturers and/or dealers would add a primitive menu
system so that novice customers could start the different applications while
knowing next to nothing about CP/M commands.
Andreas Kohlbach
Mar 31, 2021, 6:34:08 AM3/31/21
to
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.
--
Andreas
PGP fingerprint 952B0A9F12C2FD6C9F7E68DAA9C2EA89D1A370E0
Questor
Mar 31, 2021, 7:15:05 PM3/31/21
to
On 27 Mar 2021 18:00:43 -0300, Mike Spencer <m...@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>Charlie Gibbs <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> 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
>Charlie Gibbs <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> 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.
specifically the encryption/security certificates. Even the most anodyne web
sites use https today (thanks to Eric Snowden). 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. There are also the whizzy new features that web site designers
start adopting; the results are similar.
>Clinging doggedly to the trailing edge of technology...
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."
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.)
Charlie Gibbs
Apr 1, 2021, 2:32:09 AM4/1/21
to
On 2021-03-31, Questor <use...@only.tnx> wrote:
> On 27 Mar 2021 18:00:43 -0300, Mike Spencer <m...@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>
> wrote:
>
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> 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
> On 27 Mar 2021 18:00:43 -0300, Mike Spencer <m...@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>
> wrote:
>
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> 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).
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.
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.
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."
> 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.)
Never really got into QuirkBasic.
Andreas Kohlbach
Apr 1, 2021, 4:32:08 AM4/1/21
to
On 1 Apr 2021 06:31:15 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
> On 2021-03-31, Questor <use...@only.tnx> wrote:
>
>> 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.
Sweet. Although there are other exceptions. Like my web site (which has
>
> On 2021-03-31, Questor <use...@only.tnx> wrote:
>
>> 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.
fewer characters ;-). I never cared to have it to use HTTPS. Thus I use it
when I have to pass a captive portal.
Some years ago I "scripted" the login. The portal used the ID and
password "free". The URL sent was something like
"http://what_ever/index.php?id=free&passwd=free&mac=11:11:11:11:11:11", where
"11:11:11:11:11:11" is your MAC address. I extracted my MAC (which I had
changed to a random number already some decades ago) and added it to the
string, then "wget --spider ..." and I passed the portal. Today with all
the Web 2.0 goo I see some encrypted string when capturing what otherwise
would be sent by the browser, so that's a thing of the past.
Am afraid in the future some idiot might think a two-factor auth would be
a good idea. Thus that you also need to provide a mobile number (and
agree to also receive ads by text messages then), where a PIN is sent
also have to type in. :-(
> 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.
URL though. Chrome seems not to have something like that. It fails as
well on the laptop computer here as on the tablet.
J. Clarke
Apr 1, 2021, 6:56:03 AM4/1/21
to
On 1 Apr 2021 06:31:15 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid>
wrote:
FWIW, there's an open source Qbasic
compiler--<https://www.qb64.org/portal/>.
Whether it's any good or not I have no idea.
wrote:
compiler--<https://www.qb64.org/portal/>.
Whether it's any good or not I have no idea.
Quadibloc
Apr 1, 2021, 1:13:04 PM4/1/21
to
On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 4:56:03 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> 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've been using it to compile the BASIC program that draws maps
> FWIW, there's an open source Qbasic
> compiler--<https://www.qb64.org/portal/>.
> Whether it's any good or not I have no idea.
(in the .xbm format, which I then use other programs to convert
to .gif) for my web pages on map projections.
http://www.quadibloc.com/maps/mapint.htm
Only the line-drawn maps are by that program; I've also taken
those maps, and edited them in paint programs to add color or
captions, and I've used other programs like G.Projector to
generate full-relief maps and the like.
John Savard
Mike Spencer
Apr 1, 2021, 5:41:18 PM4/1/21
to
Charlie Gibbs <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
> Or you can try to find a browser that can get access without bloat.
> Seamonkey (with AdBlockPlus and NoScript) works well enough for me.
menu. There are perhaps 3 sites where I turn it on.
> 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.
excellent lesson in "Do I really need that?" Kerosene lighting, even
Aladdin lamps, was inadequate and we went to gas lighting. I read a
lot of interesting stuff by gaslight. Cooking on wood in a hot summer
was problematic so we got a gas two-burner hotplate -- easier than the
traditional solution of building and furnishing a separate "summer
kitchen." Some other things? Don't really need that, not worth the
bother, expense, upkeep.
Forty years on, we have electricity, both landline and cell phones and
seven computers but a hand pump water supply and hand-fed wood heat.
I split 8 cord of firewood a year with a maul. As long as I'm able to
do so, I don't need a gasoline-powered hydraulic splitter for reasons
cited above: bother, expense, upkeep.
With all that practice, it's much easier than it might be to say "Not
worth the [variously] risk, bother, annoyance" on the web.
Bald-faced assertion: There's too much stuff. And the effect is
fractal, occurring at all scales and in all domains from information
to workboots, from people to breakfast cereals. Some kind of first
approximation filter reminiscent of Procrustes, perhaps slightly less
stupid and psychopathic, seems justified.
> 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.
selecting No Style in Seamonkey. Real happy that someone pointed
that out to me.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Apr 10, 2021, 6:00:02 PM4/10/21
to
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.
--
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/
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.
--
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/
Quadibloc
Apr 10, 2021, 6:32:39 PM4/10/21
to
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!
> 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.
John Savard
Charlie Gibbs
Apr 10, 2021, 8:37:21 PM4/10/21
to
On 2021-04-10, gree...@gmail.com <gree...@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.
> 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
Apr 10, 2021, 8:37:21 PM4/10/21
to
On 2021-04-10, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> 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.
<snicker>
> 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.
Sex without love is an empty feeling, but
as empty feelings go it's one of the best.
-- Woody Allen
greymaus
Apr 11, 2021, 10:14:34 AM4/11/21
to
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 06:34:05 -0400, Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> sprachen:
> 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
>
>>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
>>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.
>
> 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
greymaus
Apr 11, 2021, 10:15:42 AM4/11/21
to
On 2021-04-10, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> 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.
>
Good!
> 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.
>
J. Clarke
Apr 19, 2021, 5:25:55 PM4/19/21
to
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.
>
>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).
>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).
undefined Hancock-4
Jun 16, 2021, 3:08:49 PM6/16/21
to
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 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?
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.
Thomas Koenig
Jun 16, 2021, 3:13:49 PM6/16/21
to
Charlie Gibbs
Jun 16, 2021, 5:15:25 PM6/16/21
to
new hardware in the bargain?
> You can always use dosemu.
just fine. I still fire up GWBASIC for quick-and-dirty jobs.
Bob Eager
Jun 16, 2021, 7:21:49 PM6/16/21
to
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!
> 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.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Bob Eager
Jun 17, 2021, 1:47:23 AM6/17/21
to
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.
You can boot it if you have diskettes. Using a CDROM is problematical
because a modern one will be SATA.
> 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.
>
>
>> I just run PCDOS 7.0 under VirtualBox!
>
> Suppose you can still boot pure DOS on a modern machine?
>> I just run PCDOS 7.0 under VirtualBox!
>
You can boot it if you have diskettes. Using a CDROM is problematical
because a modern one will be SATA.
Quadibloc
Jun 17, 2021, 2:41:45 AM6/17/21
to
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
> 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.
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
Scott Lurndal
Jun 17, 2021, 11:33:43 AM6/17/21
to
>> 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 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.
Charlie Gibbs
Jun 17, 2021, 1:51:18 PM6/17/21
to
On 2021-06-16, Bob Eager <news...@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,
> 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!
so I don't need the latest whiz-bang GUI facilities).
undefined Hancock-4
Jun 26, 2021, 3:48:33 PM6/26/21
to
undefined Hancock-4
Jun 26, 2021, 3:53:09 PM6/26/21
to
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?
Thomas Koenig
Jun 26, 2021, 4:05:13 PM6/26/21
to
That works well for me under Windows 10.
Bob Eager
Jun 26, 2021, 4:32:13 PM6/26/21
to
I have PCDOS 7 running happily in Virtualbox.
J. Clarke
Jun 26, 2021, 11:34:22 PM6/26/21
to
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.
>
>
>
Quadibloc
Jun 27, 2021, 1:18:56 AM6/27/21
to
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.
> The current Visual Basic is free until you make something like a
> hundred thousand dollars in product sales.
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
Peter Flass
Jun 28, 2021, 8:28:44 PM6/28/21
to
on Linux, for the occasional time I need it.
--
Pete
Richmond
Jun 29, 2021, 5:09:25 AM6/29/21
to
use...@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
> 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.)
like
fbc -lang qb
undefined Hancock-4
Jun 29, 2021, 3:48:48 PM6/29/21
to
https://microsoft-visual-basic.en.softonic.com/
J. Clarke
Jun 29, 2021, 6:43:03 PM6/29/21
to
On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 12:48:47 -0700 (PDT), undefined Hancock-4
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".
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".
Daiyu Hurst
Jul 13, 2021, 1:07:10 PM7/13/21
to
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
> >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.
> 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.
> >> 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.)
> >
> >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.
0 new messages