hello from Aaron
Aaron Anodide
the ms forums, so my apologies if I should know a rule that I break.
Anyway, I subscribed to this group because I'm interested to know what
anyone out there is doing with DOS these days and also - what does
"basic.dos" actually mean? I know it doesn't mean VB... at least I'm pretty
sure.. the reality is I've never seen any windows based BASIC that actually
had line numbers, which is sort of the defining factor for me to call
something basic - and maybe that is incorrect. I think I used QuickBasic
once or twice, and I can't remember if that was an MS-DOS application or
not. It did not have line numbers as I recall, which makes it much lass
"basic" to me.
Regards,
Aaron
Tim Meddick
You are pretty well acurate when you mention "Quick Basic" as that IS the
area of interest that this newsgroup covers - programming or running programs in the
"basic" language for DOS environments.
You will often get "told off" by some uncompromising folks here, for posting
questions / topics that do not include "basic".
For questions and discussion about all aspects of the DOS environment (not just
related to "basic") - you should post to :
alt.msdos.batch
(on server: nntp.aioe.org)
...and for discussion on the "Command Interpreter" (DOS-box) under NT-based Windows
(NT / 2K / XP) you should be posting to :
microsoft.public.win2000.cmdprompt.admin
(on the same server as this group: msnews.microsoft.com)
The only microsoft newsgroup to deal with DOS nobody uses (for some reason) but does
exist :
microsoft.public.win95.msdosapps
(on the same server again: msnews.microsoft.com)
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
"Aaron Anodide" <aa...@netschool101.com> wrote in message
news:uLoWKTpd...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
RobertVA
Newsgroup names are like the folder paths on a hard drive, therefore
this IS a group about BASIC (all caps, because it's an acronym) that
runs in the Microsoft/IBM command line based OSs. The public.basic.other
newsgroup is for BASICs that run in other command operating systems.
since newsgroup names are traditionaly lower case, the status of "basic"
as an acronym is less obvious and there are some of people that think
this group is for "basic DOS" inquiries.
There are other groups on the Microsoft news server for the "Visual..."
series of development tools, most with "vb", "visual..." or "vc" in the
group names.
Quickbasic (for some reason Microsoft doesn't capitalize the acronym)
adds programmer defined complex/structured variable types and the
ability to name subroutines, much easier to remember than line numbers.
The included editor also allowed the programmer to move the cursor
around the source file instead of the clunky line based editing of the
earlier BASICs (that came with MS-DOS, IBM-DOS and several other
operating systems and system ROMS). Quickbasic included a compiler for
generating executable files that concealed the source from nosy users
(presumably producing smaller files that would execute faster). The
Qbasic that came with the later versions of MSDOS (and some early
versions of Windows - ran in a DOS virtual machine or DOS mode) lacked
the compiler but was similar to QuickBasic.
Much of the syntax of C would be recognizable to someone familiar with
BASIC. There's some added functions involving direct manipulation of the
program's variable space (and sometimes hardware locations) and pointers
to memory locations.
The various C++ languages from Microsoft and other publishers allow the
programmer to create new variable types (referred to as "classes") that
among other things can include code for new operators and checks for
valid values when a value is assigned to a variable. The Windows OS
environment utilizes a significant quantity of classes defined by the
Windows development team. Windows user interface features like menus,
command buttons and the dialog boxes used to browse for a data file
represent objects (combinations of values and code) belonging to the
classes created by the Windows development team.
Pascal was an earlier language with some structured variable capabilities.
DOS Guy
> alt.msdos.batch
> (on server: nntp.aioe.org)
>
> microsoft.public.win2000.cmdprompt.admin
> (on the same server as this group: msnews.microsoft.com)
It doesn't matter what news server you post to - as long as the server
carries the group.
Contrary to what some people believe, Micro$oft has *no* special
relationship to the microsoft.* hierarchy of newsgroups. By
relationship, I mean control, direction, moderation, aggregation,
collection, distribution or ownership.
> microsoft.public.win2000.cmdprompt.admin
The AIOE server carries that group, so you can post and read messages to
that newsgroup using the AIOE server, as well as several hundred other
microsoft.* groups.
Tim Meddick
I'm not at all sure what point you are trying to make, however let me
try to explain what I was attempting to convey in my last post.
When I was just starting out with newsgroups, unlike some born geniuses I had great
difficulty in locating the server-name of the alt.msdos.batch newsgroup.
The only server-name I had at the time was [msnews.microsoft.com] and the
[alt.msdos.batch] group is NOT on that server!
Whereas, I realize you can access this group via the web and don't need to ever know
what server it is on.
But, I was using OE as a news-reader and desperately wanted to keep on using it to
access this particular group [alt.msdos.batch]
So I was just including that information just in case the OP wanted to know it (as I
very much did).
If you don't input the correct server-name [nntp.aioe.org] into Outlook Express you
WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ACCESS [alt.msdos.batch] !!
As for the "top posting" comment - I will not waste my time expressing myself again -
if the way I compose my replies makes it unreadable - then you should not be able to
quote me to criticize me - if, OTOH, you can read it, then it is doing it's primary
job of communicating something - end of...
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
"DOS Guy" <D...@Guy.com> wrote in message news:4B1C6C27...@Guy.com...
DOS Guy
> DOS Guy, I'm not at all sure what point you are trying to make,
The point I'm trying to make is that this is a usenet newsgroup.
Usenet newsgroups are not tied to specific servers.
> When I was just starting out with newsgroups, unlike some born
> geniuses I had great difficulty in locating the server-name of
> the alt.msdos.batch newsgroup.
Let me explain.
There is not a single server that is responsible for hosting the
messages of any particular newsgroup.
Usenet servers are set up by their owners/operators such that they will
carry certain subsets of the entire set of usenet newsgroups.
> The only server-name I had at the time was [msnews.microsoft.com]
> and the [alt.msdos.batch] group is NOT on that server!
That's because microsoft has chosen to only carry the microsoft.* set of
news groups. Most corporations that operate news servers choose to only
carry the groups that pertain to their products.
> Whereas, I realize you can access this group via the web and
> don't need to ever know what server it is on.
I'm not accessing this group through the web (I suppose you mean google
groups).
I'm reading and posting to it via the AIOE news server.
> If you don't input the correct server-name [nntp.aioe.org] into
> Outlook Express you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ACCESS [alt.msdos.batch] !!
There are many news servers that carry alt.msdos.batch. Saying that the
aioe server is the "correct server" doesn't make any sense.
> As for the "top posting" comment - I will not waste my time
> expressing myself again - if the way I compose my replies makes
> it unreadable - then you should not be able to quote me to
> criticize me - if, OTOH, you can read it, then it is doing
> it's primary job of communicating something - end of...
Top posting is bad form when composing usenet replies. Top posting is a
convention that usually happens when one is composing an e-mail reply
using microsoft software (outlook, OE, etc).
You are a top-poster because the new text that you are typing is located
at the very top of your posted reply. The "flow" of a message thread is
more logical when you add your new material to the BOTTOM of the
material you are quoting.
But in your case, you are also a Full-Quoter. Full-quoting is also bad
form for usenet message-composition (but again, it's typical for e-mail
replies).
Full-quoting indicates that you are either too lazy or too stupid to
edit your reply to remove unnecessary text. When you full-quote, you
are dragging excess material into your reply for no reason.
You will note that I selectively quote you and add my responses
in-line. That makes my reply more readable and understandable than
yours. I can convey more information, with better context and
efficiency, when I quote you in this in-line manner. That can't be done
when you full-quote and bottom-post.
Tim Meddick
groups etc,. and that [nntp.aioe.org] is not necessarilly the "correct" server.
However, you still have to input "A" server-name into OE (that is the correct one in
that it carries the desired group) and [nntp.aioe.org] is one that does.
If you just had the group-name [alt.msdos.batch] and had NO server-name for it,
you're NOT going to access it.
So I was just passing some information that I know would have helped me when I was
trying to look for groups that were not on the [msnews.microsoft.com] newsserver.
It's better to quote information that pertains to helping someone rather that just
pontificating about how someone, who's sole motivation was trying to be helpfull,
posting to this group doesn't know everything about a subject and starting his
critisisms with a jibe at where this poster chooses to place his reply?
Please, if you can't think up something posative to say, don't bother replying to
anything I write.
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
"DOS Guy" <D...@Guy.com> wrote in message news:4B1C825B...@Guy.com...
DOS Guy
> However, you still have to input "A" server-name into OE
OE is not the only client application that can be used to read and post
usenet messages.
But like all usenet clients (and e-mail clients) you need to tell your
client the identity of a message transfer server that it uses to perform
the transaction. In other words, just as you can't send and receive
e-mail without setting an SMTP server, you can't read or post usenet
messages without setting an NNTP server.
> (that is the correct one in that it carries the desired group)
> and [nntp.aioe.org] is one that does.
One does not usually determine the desired group first, and the NNTP
server second.
One normally sets an NNTP server first, and then chooses which groups
he/she wants to read on a regular basis. The server that is chosen is
one that carries as many newsgroups as possible, at a cost that the user
is comfortable paying for. I mention cost because there are
subscription-based servers that retain posts for up to a year or more,
and carry binary newsgroups (newsgroups who's posts contain images,
movies, software, etc).
ISP's traditionally have operated their own NNTP servers for exclusive
use by their customers, but the trend over the past few years has been
to turn them off as ISP's seek to shield themselves from legal
challenges from media-rights organizations and law enforcement agencies.
Your ISP (Hutchison 3G UK) appears to operate an nntp server
(nntp.three.co.uk), ip address 92.41.252.3. I have no idea if an actual
nntp server is operating at that address (it doesn't respond to my
telnet requests).
On a smaller scale, individuals and small groups also operate their own
NNTP servers as a hobby, sometimes seeking donations, but by and large
allowing free, anonymous access to them. The message retention on such
servers is typically short (2 to 4 weeks) and they usually don't carry
binary groups. The AIOE server is one example of such a server.
> If you just had the group-name [alt.msdos.batch] and had NO
> server-name for it, you're NOT going to access it.
Most help files that are built into usenet client software explain that
you need to enter an NNTP server setting in order to read and post
messages.
The OP of this thread (Aaron) seems to be using his web browser to
access this newsgroup via Microsoft's web or http interface, not an
actual NNTP usenet client like OE.
Reading and posting to usenet via a web-to-usenet gateway is considered
"lame" and people who do so are usually poorly regarded by others
(especially when you use the google-groups web-to-usenet interface).
Some people go so far as to block the posts made by "google-groupers" so
that they don't see them when reading usenet.
> So I was just passing some information that I know would
> have helped me when I was trying to look for groups that
> were not on the [msnews.microsoft.com] newsserver.
Your information will not help Aaron until or unless he starts using a
proper usenet client.
> It's better to quote information that pertains to helping
> someone rather that just pontificating about how someone,
> who's sole motivation was trying to be helpfull, posting
> to this group doesn't know everything about a subject and
> starting his critisisms with a jibe at where this poster
> chooses to place his reply?
I was not critisizing your attempt to help Aaron.
I was explaining to you how your posting and message-composition style
runs counter to traditional usenet conventions, and I was explaining
exactly how these conventions (bottom-posting and in-line quoting)
result in a better, more readable replies.
> Please, if you can't think up something posative to say,
> don't bother replying to anything I write.
An important rule that you should learn about usenet is that you can't
force people to NOT post replies to your posts. When you post a
message, in a public forum such as this, you should be prepared for
replies of any nature.
And you should also recognize when intelligent and well-considered
advice is given to you by those that have been posting to usenet for
over 20 years.
Happy Trails
>You will note that I selectively quote you and add my responses
>in-line. That makes my reply more readable and understandable than
>yours. I can convey more information, with better context and
>efficiency, when I quote you in this in-line manner. That can't be done
>when you full-quote and bottom-post.
?
Todd Vargo
Obviously he meant.
'That can't be done when you full-quote and top-post.'
Most of us who recognized the typo ignored it because the sentiment was
there.
--
Todd Vargo
(Post questions to group only. Remove "z" to email personal messages)
Tim Meddick
Notwithstanding, you start telling me that you NEED a nntp server to be specified to
use one.
That is rich considering that this information was what I was telling the OP to start
with (i.e. quoting the relevant nntp server-names), and to those who don't use
clients apps to access groups - they could just ignore that information.
But in my original reply, I quoted the group-names that the OP should be posting his
"DOS" questions to.
If you have some actual bone-fide reason for criticizing my original reply, apart
from my choice of where to place that text in the reply, say so, if not, please stop
making criticism for the sake of it.
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-(
"DOS Guy" <D...@Guy.com> wrote in message news:4B1D105B...@Guy.com...
> Top-Poaster and Full-Quoter Tim Meddick wrote:
>
>> However, you still have to input "A" server-name into OE
>
> OE is not the only client application that can be used to read and post
> usenet messages.
>
> < clipped >
Happy Trails
When he is arguing about such a dipshit picky topic as top- vs.
bottom-posting he ought to at least proof-read it before hitting send.
===========
DOS Guy
> When he is arguing about such a dipshit picky topic as top- vs.
> bottom-posting he ought to at least proof-read it before hitting
> send.
Let me get this clear.
Proof-reading is advised primarily for dipshit picky topics?
I'll have to keep that in mind.
Juan Vallejo
these days?
Regards,
Juan
Victor Willy Garcia
Ethan Winer
> these days?
Not only does QuickBASIC work, it's also very fast and easy to complete a
program. A few years ago I was dissatisfied with the web reporting tools my
web host offers. So I started downloading the log files manually every day,
and I wrote my own program to display the data I want in the way I want. It
took me only 6 to 8 hours to develop a very sophisticated app. However when
writing programs for others, where appearance is more important, I'll use
Windows (Liberty Basic).
--Ethan
Auric__
Out of curiosity, why LB?
--
You have ideas about "the way things are supposed to be."
But what is "the way things are"?
Ethan Winer
Cost and simplicity mostly. Liberty Basic seems the closest to QuickBasic,
without having to spend big bux on VB and it's huge install footprint.
--Ethan
Auric__
Well... as I've said before... at length... I prefer PowerBASIC, for various
reasons. Not as easy to do forms as VB (or most other Windows BASICs), but
its other feature keep me happy. (I spent the "big bux" on Visual Studio 6
Expensive Edition many years ago, and still use it for user interfaces and
some other things. PB code -> DLLs.)
--
Rather busy fleeing in terror right now!
Tom Lake
"Ethan Winer" <ethanw at ethanwiner dot com> wrote in message
news:#3litMyg...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Ethan,
Have you checked out FreeBASIC or QB64? They're closer to QB than LB is.
Tom Lake
Ethan Winer
wrote a simple acoustics program to give away on my company's site, and I
liked JB enough to buy the paid version Liberty Basic. I wrote one more much
larger Windows program with LB, and that was the last time I needed to write
a program. :->)