STANDALONE BASIC (an MBASIC variant)
Douglas Beattie Jr.
the KAYPRO MBASIC REFERENCE manual. -- it sounds like a great idea,
to add to my boot ROM. Perhaps somebody knows where a copy can be
found.. Have you seen/heard of it?
--
Douglas Beattie Jr. http://www2.whidbey.net/~beattidp/
Allison
>I'm still looking for "STANDALONE BASIC" -- I read about it in
>the KAYPRO MBASIC REFERENCE manual. -- it sounds like a great idea,
>to add to my boot ROM. Perhaps somebody knows where a copy can be
>found.. Have you seen/heard of it?
YEs, there was a 4k, 8k and 12k version. The 8k was most common.
Netronics Explorer 8085 was available with the 8k rom version ORGed at
C000h. I have it but I've burried it somewhere. IT would not run on
a kaypro due to the org address.
Also the TRS80 mod 1 machien had a 4k and later a 12k basic orged at
4000h, may be that would be easier to find.
Allison
>--
>Douglas Beattie Jr. http://www2.whidbey.net/~beattidp/
Real address is: Allisonp @ world DOT std DOT com
++++BULK Email severely not wanted+++
bma...@iglou.com
>Also the TRS80 mod 1 machien had a 4k and later a 12k basic orged at
>4000h, may be that would be easier to find.
The Level 1 Basic was a version of Tiny Basic with floating point numbers.
And there was the Model 100 with its 8k(?) basic. (total of 32k rom including
telcom and text editor).
Net-Tamer V 1.08X - Test Drive
Douglas Beattie Jr.
Microsoft BASIC-80 v3.05, "stand-alone version." the MBASIC reference
manual describes it, and its differences. I wanted to develop MBASIC
code with Z80 USR routines under CP/M, and then run these under the
Microsoft STANDALONE BASIC, which loads from a DISK into RAM, now that
I think I remember correctly -- it's a bootable disk, isn't it?
-- there's a bootloader, and I assume the OEM reference for STANDALONE
BASIC describes how to implement it.. This is an important piece of
history, as well as a practical tool. Nobody here knows about it..?
Well, I'm still hoping to find it. Microsoft never writes me back.
--
Douglas Beattie Jr. http://www2.whidbey.net/~beattidp/
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Douglas Beattie Jr. wrote:
>
> I'm still looking for "STANDALONE BASIC" -- I read about it in
> the KAYPRO MBASIC REFERENCE manual. -- it sounds like a great idea,
> to add to my boot ROM. Perhaps somebody knows where a copy can be
> found.. Have you seen/heard of it?
>
Jon Saxton
<beat...@whidbey.net> wrote:
> .... it still sounds like nobody knows what I'm talking about. It's
> Microsoft BASIC-80 v3.05, "stand-alone version." the MBASIC reference
> manual describes it, and its differences. I wanted to develop MBASIC
> code with Z80 USR routines under CP/M, and then run these under the
> Microsoft STANDALONE BASIC, which loads from a DISK into RAM, now that
> I think I remember correctly -- it's a bootable disk, isn't it?
>
> -- there's a bootloader, and I assume the OEM reference for STANDALONE
> BASIC describes how to implement it.. This is an important piece of
> history, as well as a practical tool. Nobody here knows about it..?
> Well, I'm still hoping to find it. Microsoft never writes me back.
I'm fairly sure I used to own a copy of that; it was one of the first
pieces of software I ever bought. Indeed, now I think of it, I
remember more details.
BASIC-80 was a *compiler* for BASIC whereas MBASIC was an interpreter.
I bought it because I wanted M80/L80 and it was almost the same price
to get the BASIC compiler which included the assembler and linker as
to buy the assembler and linker as a separate package.
I do not remember any details of the compiled BASIC. I have long
since lost or given away the manual but a couple of things would be
obious.
1. The final code, being Z80/8080 machine code, would not need an
interpreter to execute. In that sense the code runs standalone.
2. All the development tools (BASIC-80, M80, L80) are standard CP/M
programs and run on any CP/M 2.2 or 3.0 system.
3. The generated code (typically) requires CP/M support. As such it
does not generate a bootable disk. You simply execute the code from
CP/M.
4. I have the faintest recollection of a section in the manual
dealing with generating ROM-resident code. No details.
--
Reply to: field is bogus. Respond to
Jon Saxton <triton /at/ ibm /dot/ net> OS/2 software developer
U.S. Agent for Triton Technologies International Ltd.
This message was posted from an Aurora client constructed 20/6/99.
Paul Schlyter
Standalone Basic doesn't require any OS -- it runs directly, all by
itself, on some specific hardware -- that's why it's called "Standalone".
And, yes, it's an interpreter, not a compiler. But the interpreter
doesn't require any OS.
> 2. All the development tools (BASIC-80, M80, L80) are standard CP/M
> programs and run on any CP/M 2.2 or 3.0 system.
> 3. The generated code (typically) requires CP/M support. As such it
> does not generate a bootable disk. You simply execute the code from
> CP/M.
>
> 4. I have the faintest recollection of a section in the manual
> dealing with generating ROM-resident code. No details.
--
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pau...@saaf.se paul.s...@ausys.se pa...@inorbit.com
WWW: http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch http://welcome.to/pausch
Douglas Beattie Jr.
> > The final code, being Z80/8080 machine code, would not need an
> > interpreter to execute. In that sense the code runs standalone.
Stand-alone *code* .. I see; it needs no runtime module?
> > All the development tools (BASIC-80, M80, L80) are standard CP/M
> > programs and run on any CP/M 2.2 or 3.0 system.
Not so with STANDALONE BASIC -- no OS at all.
> > The generated code (typically) requires CP/M support. As such it
> > does not generate a bootable disk. You simply execute the code
> > from CP/M.
Paul Schlyter wrote:
> Standalone Basic doesn't require any OS -- it runs directly, all
> by itself, on some specific hardware -- that's why it's called
> "Standalone". And, yes, it's an interpreter, not a compiler.
> But the interpreter doesn't require any OS.
>
EXACTLY... Paul knows what STANDALONE BASIC is. Now if I can just
hunt it down...
John Elliott
>
>> > The final code, being Z80/8080 machine code, would not need an
>> > interpreter to execute. In that sense the code runs standalone.
>
>Stand-alone *code* .. I see; it needs no runtime module?
I rather thought compiled MS BASIC needed BRUN.COM.
------------- http://www.seasip.demon.co.uk/index.html --------------------
John Elliott |BLOODNOK: "But why have you got such a long face?"
|SEAGOON: "Heavy dentures, Sir!" - The Goon Show
:-------------------------------------------------------------------------)
Allison
Ok... Now I got which one your looking for.
It's MITS disk basic is one version of it. The TRS80 12k(LII) basic
also supported disk basic with NO TRSDOS.
Allison
Tim Mann
> also supported disk basic with NO TRSDOS.
That's a new one on me. From where did one get the missing pieces to
access disks without TRSDOS? There are no disk access routines in the
12K Level II ROM other than a simple loader that will get the boot sector
into memory and jump to it if a disk controller is present.
Tim Mann <ma...@pa.dec.com> Compaq Systems Research Center
http://www.research.digital.com/SRC/personal/Tim_Mann/
Derek Peschel
>> The TRS80 12k(LII) basic
>> also supported disk basic with NO TRSDOS.
>
>That's a new one on me. From where did one get the missing pieces to
>access disks without TRSDOS? There are no disk access routines in the
>12K Level II ROM other than a simple loader that will get the boot sector
>into memory and jump to it if a disk controller is present.
I think I know exactly what is being discussed here (though I'm not sure
that it *is* what's being discussed). It surprises me that the concept is
so strange.
So in the case of the TRS80 level II ROMs, that would mean you could boot a
BASIC disk and have disk support without actually loading TRSDOS. (I guess
the sentence that Tim quoted was confusingly worded.) In the same way, the
poor person who started this thread is looking for copies of a bootable
BASIC disk for CP/M machines that doesn't actually contain CP/M.
Standalone BASIC _stands alone_ from any other operating-system software by
including its own. In other words, the program is essentially a small
self-contained OS and BASIC interpreter. I would say the spirit of
standalone disk BASIC is pretty much the same as the spirit of MS's orignal
paper-tape BASICs (except for the disk support, of course) -- take over the
machine.
Perhaps this would clarify things: Standalone BASIC is apparently how
Microsoft got its first experience with the FAT that we all know from
MS-DOS. Yes, I assume (but I don't know) that that _did_ happen on 8080
machines. As you can see, that would Standalone BASIC radically different
internally from CP/M or TRSDOS, even if things like filename formats might
_look_ the same.
If you consider that even GW-BASIC for the PC includes "operating-system"
commands inside itself _which don't seem to use the host OS completely_
(i.e., you can create ill-formed filenames with spaces or lowercase letters
or whatever) you can see that the _mentality_ of a self-contained BASIC has
remained, even if the implementation has not.
I hope this makes things simpler rather than more confusing...
And no, I don't have any version of standalone BASIC.
-- Derek
Jon Saxton
used is a different product from the thing Doug was talking about,
with the possible exception that there may have been something in the
manual regarding the generation of ROM-resident code with the
implication that such code would not need OS support. However I
believe that possibility is fairly remote if you consider the
consequences.
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:58:08, pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)
wrote:
> In article <HIpBdTRdkjhH-pn2-YBB9Xi7R08cr@vlad>,
> Jon Saxton <nospam@here> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:05:30, "Douglas Beattie Jr."
> > <beat...@whidbey.net> wrote:
> >
> >> .... it still sounds like nobody knows what I'm talking about. It's
> >> Microsoft BASIC-80 v3.05, "stand-alone version." the MBASIC reference
> >> manual describes it, and its differences. I wanted to develop MBASIC
> >> code with Z80 USR routines under CP/M, and then run these under the
> >> Microsoft STANDALONE BASIC, which loads from a DISK into RAM, now that
> >> I think I remember correctly -- it's a bootable disk, isn't it?
> >>
> >> -- there's a bootloader, and I assume the OEM reference for STANDALONE
> >> BASIC describes how to implement it.. This is an important piece of
> >> history, as well as a practical tool. Nobody here knows about it..?
> >> Well, I'm still hoping to find it. Microsoft never writes me back.
> >
> > I'm fairly sure I used to own a copy of that; it was one of the first
> > pieces of software I ever bought. Indeed, now I think of it, I
> > remember more details.
> >
> > BASIC-80 was a *compiler* for BASIC whereas MBASIC was an interpreter.
> > I bought it because I wanted M80/L80 and it was almost the same price
> > to get the BASIC compiler which included the assembler and linker as
> > to buy the assembler and linker as a separate package.
> >
> > I do not remember any details of the compiled BASIC. I have long
> > since lost or given away the manual but a couple of things would be
> > obious.
> >
> > 1. The final code, being Z80/8080 machine code, would not need an
> > interpreter to execute. In that sense the code runs standalone.
>
> That code doesn't run standalone -- it requires CP/M to be up and running!
>
> Standalone Basic doesn't require any OS -- it runs directly, all by
> itself, on some specific hardware -- that's why it's called "Standalone".
> And, yes, it's an interpreter, not a compiler. But the interpreter
> doesn't require any OS.
>
> > 2. All the development tools (BASIC-80, M80, L80) are standard CP/M
> > programs and run on any CP/M 2.2 or 3.0 system.
>
> Which means they're not standalone: they require CP/M
>
> > 3. The generated code (typically) requires CP/M support. As such it
> > does not generate a bootable disk. You simply execute the code from
> > CP/M.
> >
> > 4. I have the faintest recollection of a section in the manual
> > dealing with generating ROM-resident code. No details.
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
> Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
> e-mail: pau...@saaf.se paul.s...@ausys.se pa...@inorbit.com
> WWW: http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch http://welcome.to/pausch
--
Richard Steven Walz
Jon Saxton <nospam@here> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:05:30, "Douglas Beattie Jr."
><beat...@whidbey.net> wrote:
>
>> .... it still sounds like nobody knows what I'm talking about. It's
>> Microsoft BASIC-80 v3.05, "stand-alone version." the MBASIC reference
>> manual describes it, and its differences. I wanted to develop MBASIC
>> code with Z80 USR routines under CP/M, and then run these under the
>> Microsoft STANDALONE BASIC, which loads from a DISK into RAM, now that
>> I think I remember correctly -- it's a bootable disk, isn't it?
>>
>> -- there's a bootloader, and I assume the OEM reference for STANDALONE
>> BASIC describes how to implement it.. This is an important piece of
>> history, as well as a practical tool. Nobody here knows about it..?
>> Well, I'm still hoping to find it. Microsoft never writes me back.
>
>I'm fairly sure I used to own a copy of that; it was one of the first
>pieces of software I ever bought. Indeed, now I think of it, I
>remember more details.
>
>BASIC-80 was a *compiler* for BASIC whereas MBASIC was an interpreter.
> I bought it because I wanted M80/L80 and it was almost the same price
>to get the BASIC compiler which included the assembler and linker as
>to buy the assembler and linker as a separate package.
Oh! Old BASCOM!! A lot of us have that, I have it both for DOS and for
CP/M. I thought you meant a ROM-resident BASIC interpreter!! I've been
looking for a really good ROM 8085/Z80 BASIC, (yes, I have Kevin Horton's).
Email me if you want to "discuss" it. ;-> I have all the manuals as well!
-Steve
>I do not remember any details of the compiled BASIC. I have long
>since lost or given away the manual but a couple of things would be
>obious.
>
>1. The final code, being Z80/8080 machine code, would not need an
>interpreter to execute. In that sense the code runs standalone.
>
>2. All the development tools (BASIC-80, M80, L80) are standard CP/M
>programs and run on any CP/M 2.2 or 3.0 system.
>
>3. The generated code (typically) requires CP/M support. As such it
>does not generate a bootable disk. You simply execute the code from
>CP/M.
>
>4. I have the faintest recollection of a section in the manual
>dealing with generating ROM-resident code. No details.
------------------------------
Yes, you simply generate object code for the appropriate ORG address.
There's a command-line switch for it.
-Steve
>--
>Reply to: field is bogus. Respond to
>Jon Saxton <triton /at/ ibm /dot/ net> OS/2 software developer
>U.S. Agent for Triton Technologies International Ltd.
>This message was posted from an Aurora client constructed 20/6/99.
-----------------------------------------
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rst...@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com:/pub/user/rstevew
-Electronics Site!! 1000 Files/50 Dirs!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew
Europe Naples Italy: http://ftp.unina.it/pub/electronics/ftp.armory.com
Richard Steven Walz
Douglas Beattie Jr. <beat...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> Jon Saxton wrote:
>
>> > The final code, being Z80/8080 machine code, would not need an
>> > interpreter to execute. In that sense the code runs standalone.
>
>
>> > programs and run on any CP/M 2.2 or 3.0 system.
>
>
>> > does not generate a bootable disk. You simply execute the code
>> > from CP/M.
>
>
>> Standalone Basic doesn't require any OS -- it runs directly, all
>> by itself, on some specific hardware -- that's why it's called
>> "Standalone". And, yes, it's an interpreter, not a compiler.
>> But the interpreter doesn't require any OS.
>>
>
>hunt it down...
>--
>Douglas Beattie Jr. http://www2.whidbey.net/~beattidp/
Doug, if you find it tell me, please, but my site does have Kevin Horton's
8085 BASIC in ROM if you want it. If 8085 is good enough? In my 8085/
subdir in my FTP dirs.
Tim Mann
> >> The TRS80 12k(LII) basic
> >> also supported disk basic with NO TRSDOS.
Tim Mann wrote:
> >That's a new one on me. From where did one get the missing pieces to
> >access disks without TRSDOS? There are no disk access routines in the
> >12K Level II ROM other than a simple loader that will get the boot sector
> >into memory and jump to it if a disk controller is present.
Derek Peshel wrote:
> I think I know exactly what is being discussed here (though I'm not sure
> that it *is* what's being discussed). It surprises me that the concept is
> so strange.
>
> So in the case of the TRS80 level II ROMs, that would mean you could boot a
> BASIC disk and have disk support without actually loading TRSDOS. (I guess
> the sentence that Tim quoted was confusingly worded.) In the same way, the
> poor person who started this thread is looking for copies of a bootable
> BASIC disk for CP/M machines that doesn't actually contain CP/M.
Just to clarify, I understand what standalone Basic is, and I understood
Allison's sentence. It's my message that was badly worded. (Very badly!)
What I meant to say was completely different, namely:
Allison, are you sure that there was a standalone Disk Basic for the TRS-80?
I've never heard of that product before, though of course there are a
lot of things I've never heard of. If so, it would be interesting to
know the history of the product -- was it ever released, where could you
buy it if so, and did it come out before or after TRSDOS? (I guess it
would have to be after, since I don't think Tandy released any hardware
until they had a TRSDOS to ship with it.)
Thanks,
--Tim
Derek Peschel
>Allison wrote:
>> >> The TRS80 12k(LII) basic
>> >> also supported disk basic with NO TRSDOS.
>
>Tim Mann wrote:
>> >That's a new one on me. From where did one get the missing pieces to
>> >access disks without TRSDOS? There are no disk access routines in the
>> >12K Level II ROM other than a simple loader that will get the boot sector
>> >into memory and jump to it if a disk controller is present.
>
>Derek Peshel wrote:
>> I think I know exactly what is being discussed here (though I'm not sure
>> that it *is* what's being discussed). It surprises me that the concept is
>> so strange.
>>
>> So in the case of the TRS80 level II ROMs, that would mean you could boot a
>> BASIC disk and have disk support without actually loading TRSDOS. (I guess
>> the sentence that Tim quoted was confusingly worded.) In the same way, the
>> poor person who started this thread is looking for copies of a bootable
>> BASIC disk for CP/M machines that doesn't actually contain CP/M.
>
>Just to clarify, I understand what standalone Basic is, and I understood
>Allison's sentence. It's my message that was badly worded. (Very badly!)
>What I meant to say was completely different, namely:
Sorry about that, Tim. I didn't mean to make things worse by sounding rude.
Who said that Level II disk BASIC supports standalone BASIC? That's the
part I found confusing.
-- Derek
ter...@bmts.com
I owned two Basics for TRS-80 Model III,
Compiler Basic - Which was a Seperate Basic from TRS-DOS/LDOS/NEWDOS
Basic Compiler - Which used a more standard Basic (BASCOM).
this was years ago, I also have BAZIC, and it floating point variants
as well as NBASIC for the old North Star machines.
CP/M is Dead - All that's left are us "Z"ombies...
Net-Tamer V 1.11.2 - Test Drive
Allison
>Allison wrote:
>> >> The TRS80 12k(LII) basic
>> >> also supported disk basic with NO TRSDOS.
Anywho... I worked with my altair from eartly 75 and also
was part of tandy launching the trs80 through mid 1979.
My memeory of the first disk system was no trsdos, there was a
loadable disk basic just like MITS disk basic that had no standalone
OS and the Basic had commands like CATALOG, LOAD, SAVE for disk
operations.
kgl...@seganet.com
On 1999-07-17 dpes...@u.washington.edu(DerekPeschel) said:
>Standalone BASIC _stands alone_ from any other operating-system
>software by including its own. In other words, the program is
>essentially a small self-contained OS and BASIC interpreter. I
>would say the spirit of standalone disk BASIC is pretty much the
>same as the spirit of MS's orignal paper-tape BASICs (except for
>the disk support, of course) -- take over the machine.
> [...]
>If you consider that even GW-BASIC for the PC includes
>"operating-system" commands inside itself _which don't seem to use
>the host OS completely_ (i.e., you can create ill-formed filenames
>with spaces or lowercase letters or whatever) you can see that the
>_mentality_ of a self-contained BASIC has remained, even if the
>implementation has not.
This is a valid observation. Those of us who remember the disk BASIC
provided with the 1981 IBM PC can probably also recall that the only
thing the executable file did was superimpose the DOS 1.x file system
over the in-ROM BASIC...which was contained in every original PC.
ROM BASIC was the "operating system" that popped up when the PC was
"booted" without a DOS disk in the drive. Though ROM BASIC had no
native file system, you could still do "blind" writes and reads to
and from a floppy disk.
Incidentally, Micro$loth's ROM BASIC for the PC was buggy as all
get-out. Which only goes to show, I suppose, that the current
generation of pointee-clickee Gatesware -- with all its documented
deficiencies -- is merely carrying on a grand and glorious tradition
that was inaugurated by the company's founders 'way back when. ;)
.....................................................................
Return address is mangled to foil spambots. Remove all "g"s to e-mail.
bill_h
system, say because he was planning to run P-System or CP/M-86,
were the ROMS containing Microsoft's Basic of any use to him?
Did Microsoft supply info about the ''internals'' so that other
software/operating system designers could get any use out of
them? Where can we find a copy, if they did?
Bill
Tucson, AZ
kgl...@seganet.com
On 1999-07-18 bil...@sunsouthwest.com said:
>If a person purchased an IBM PC but NOT the PC-DOS operating
>system, say because he was planning to run P-System or CP/M-86,
>were the ROMS containing Microsoft's Basic of any use to him?
Sure.
>Did Microsoft supply info about the ''internals'' so that other
>software/operating system designers could get any use out of
>them?
Heh! You already =KNOW= the answer to THAT question!
>Where can we find a copy, if they did?
Actually, I believe there =was= some info in the DOS 1.0 Programmers
Technical Reference. Goodness knows where you might find a copy at
this late date.
But the good news is: if you want to load ROM BASIC from within another
operating system, a call to BIOS-level Interrupt 18h will bring it up.
Just compile this code into a little executable under whatever operating
system you're using:
;
; BASIC.ASM
; Brings Up ROM BASIC On The Original IBM PC
; Freeware
;
cseg <-- use whatever term your compiler recognizes to indicate 'code segment'
org 100h
int 18h
end
And, of course, simply turning on the power to the PC without a boot disk
in the drive will bring up ROM BASIC.
As for a disk file system...I'm very much afraid we're on our own! ;)
Jeffrey W. Shook
of the Microsoft Basic 80 Release 5 manual. It doesn't
require any other operating system. The appendix describes
the following commands:
FPOS, DSKI$/DSKO$, MOUNT, REMOVE, SET <drive>, ATTR$, OPEN,
GET, PUT, INPUT#, OUTPUT#.
The appendix also has a about four pages describing a file
system which has many similarites to MS-DOS FAT file system
with 1 byte FAT links which would be suitable only for floppy
systems.
Unfortunately I do not have a copy of the standalone version.
"Douglas Beattie Jr." wrote:
>
> ... it still sounds like nobody knows what I'm talking about. It's
> Microsoft BASIC-80 v3.05, "stand-alone version." the MBASIC reference
> manual describes it, and its differences. I wanted to develop MBASIC
> code with Z80 USR routines under CP/M, and then run these under the
> Microsoft STANDALONE BASIC, which loads from a DISK into RAM, now that
> I think I remember correctly -- it's a bootable disk, isn't it?
>
> -- there's a bootloader, and I assume the OEM reference for STANDALONE
> BASIC describes how to implement it.. This is an important piece of
> history, as well as a practical tool. Nobody here knows about it..?
> Well, I'm still hoping to find it. Microsoft never writes me back.
>
> --
> Douglas Beattie Jr. http://www2.whidbey.net/~beattidp/
>
> *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
>
> Douglas Beattie Jr. wrote:
> >
> > I'm still looking for "STANDALONE BASIC" -- I read about it in
> > the KAYPRO MBASIC REFERENCE manual. -- it sounds like a great idea,
> > to add to my boot ROM. Perhaps somebody knows where a copy can be
> > found.. Have you seen/heard of it?
> >
> > --
> > Douglas Beattie Jr. http://www2.whidbey.net/~beattidp/
--
jws
================================================================
Jeffrey W. Shook | sh...@xsbchem.xsunysb.edu
Electronics Shop Supervisor, |
VMScluster & Network Manager | Anti-SPAM note:
Chemistry Department, SUNY | There are no x chars
Stony Brook, NY 11794-3400 | in my E-Mail address.
================================================================
Douglas Beattie Jr.
that's where it is (and probably only where it is): Appendix H of
that manual, Copyright Microsoft.
As someone pointed out, though, it has no file system compatible with
CP/M, so getting the files in and out would be yet another issue.
And since it wasn't that popular, there probably aren't alot of
programs which are useful to the CP/M community on the disks of
Standalone BASIC.
The whole package would be interesting for study, especially since
it contains something similar to a (pre-MS-DOS) DOS filesystem. And
perhaps that's where Microsoft's file system structure came from. We
know where it ended up -- on a pirated and hacked copy of CP/M-86.
So early versions of BASIC formed the basis for the MS-DOS file system?
If that's true, it's an interesting piece of history, and so is
STANDALONE BASIC. But I think I might be off-topic, so I'll stop now.
--
Douglas Beattie Jr. http://www2.whidbey.net/~beattidp/
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Mitchell Mlinar
caught up. It is good to see that somebody found the right answer,
but just to clarify for all (boy, I feel like a fossil sometimes when
these topics come up):
Microsoft did write several versions of their stand-alone BASIC -- all
of them were machine specific: Altair, TRS-80, Sorcerer, etc. They
required CUSTOM drivers either done by the OEM but usually by
Microsoft to handle keyboard, video, and first tape drives (remember
when cassette tape drives were used?) and later actually floppy
drives. There was never support for anything beyond simple 8" and
later 5.25" drives for any stand-alone BASIC I ever had to write code
for.
To my knowledge, there is no generic version of the stand-alone BASIC
unless you happen to be an OEM (from the early days) and have all the
documentation to put in the necessary drivers. Microsoft stopped
doing OEM versions of BASIC back in 1985 or thereabouts. So, be
careful if you find one to ensure it fits the hardware you want
(and/or get hold of the doc which I was never able to keep). I am not
sure about this one, but I believe the BASIC ROM on the PC did not
understand disk drives at all (but it did understand cassette tape
drives!). Certainly hard drive support would not be there unless
somebody else did it after-market.
To clarify one message thread, the FAT concept did NOT originate with
BASIC. In fact, Microsoft BASIC disk version was based upon the tape
version which is a stream-based media storage format and not random
access. Oh sure, they added the commands for that, but they kept the
streaming media model to save time. [Think about it, you could SAVE,
LOAD, and even do a DIR or DIRLIST, but where did you ever see how
much space was truly left on your audio cassette tape???] Obviously,
this was fixed in later DOS versions containing BASICA but by then
CP/M was dead from a Microsoft viewpoint.
MBASIC.COM was the CP/M name of the executable of BASIC-80 which
required the O/S since the I/O drivers were now mapped to OS function
calls. BASIC-80 was the official name of the CP/M product (BASIC for
8080, as you can guess). A bit more surgery had to be done on the
disk routines but the model was still streaming media based until very
late in CP/M days (when DOS started to eat its lunch).
-Mitch
bill_h
> This thread was interesting to read -- I was out of town and just
> caught up.
> To clarify one message thread, the FAT concept did NOT originate with
> BASIC.
Mitch, with all due respect, MS has said for many years now that it DID.
While I'd certainly agree Mbasic (CPM-80, PC-DOS) wouldn't need a FAT,
what about SOME version of stand-alone? Are you saying there was NONE
that used a FAT? I would ask in particular about the NCR (1977) version.
Marc McDonald is probably the only guy (besides Gates) who really knows.
Bill
Tucson
Tom Sullivan
that Seattle Computer included a standalone version of MBasic with
thier S-100 based 8086 computer, since DRI didn't have CP/M86 out yet.
They eventually wrote an operating system called DOS-86, or something
like that, which Bill Gates eventually bought and turned into the
first version of PCDOS for IBM.
Tom
"Charles E. Bortle, Jr." <cbr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Keep in mind, however, that ROM Basic only uses the cassette tape
>interface...
>you need the DOS BASICA (which adds on to the ROM to add the new features)
>to use disk files.