Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

I stand corrected. -- Eric Korpela korp...@ssl.berkeley.edu AST:7731^29u18e3

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Thu, 11 Jun 2020, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > GCC supports legacy Fortran code, so I have filed PR fortran/95631 to > track this bug, at: . > Let's see what emerges. So the response from GCC Fortran experts is as follows: "[...] Yes, old

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Sun, 31 May 2020, Eric Korpela via cctalk wrote: > C > C CHANGE THE VALUE OF 4 > C > > CALL INC(4) > WRITE (*, 30) 4 > 30FORMAT ('2+2=',I4) > END > > SUBROUTINE INC(I) > I = I + 1 > END > > OUTPUT > 2+2= 5 Hmm, as a matter of interest

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Sat, 23 May 2020 at 03:52, Richard Cini via cctalk wrote: > > You know, reading about this made me dig out the info I had on the Character > Oriented Windows ("COW") library. I was reading some of the docs and it > occurred to me that it operated much like Windows (probably Windows 1), but >

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

ot; To: "cctalk" Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 11:40:10 PM Subject: Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 at 00:14, Eric Korpela via cctalk wrote: > C > C CHANGE THE VALUE OF 4 > C > > CALL INC(4) > WRITE (*, 30) 4 > 30 FORMAT ('

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 at 00:14, Eric Korpela via cctalk wrote: > C > C CHANGE THE VALUE OF 4 > C > > CALL INC(4) > WRITE (*, 30) 4 > 30FORMAT ('2+2=',I4) > END > > SUBROUTINE INC(I) > I = I + 1 > END > > OUTPUT > 2+2= 5 I had no idea, and I wro

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 at 01:57, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > > A Tesla is a rather expensive electric car, a product of Elon Musk. > STARTING (minimal stripped down) at 40,000 pounds, and some models over > 80,000 pounds. > > Sell one of THOSE, and you can buy a car AND a lot of great computer > st

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/31/20 3:13 PM, Eric Korpela via cctalk wrote: > Most languages will give you some way to shoot yourself in the foot. The > question is how much work do you need to do? In FORTRAN the easiest method > was changing the value of a literal in a subroutine call. It is standard > compliant behavi

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/31/20 3:13 PM, Eric Korpela via cctalk wrote: > Most languages will give you some way to shoot yourself in the foot. The > question is how much work do you need to do? In FORTRAN the easiest method > was changing the value of a literal in a subroutine call. It is standard > compliant behavi

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 2020-05-30 14:18, Boris Gimbarzevsky via cctech wrote: Chuck, your post just reminded me of how I used FORTRAN to interface with my PDP-11 ASM routines when I was doing data acquisition as fast as possible on a MINC system. Perused my FORTRAN code about 6 months ago and had common blocks and

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

He amassed a huge collection, then sold the lot and bought a Tesla. :-) On Mon, 1 Jun 2020, Tony Duell via cctalk wrote: Assuming a 'Tesla' is an electric car, I'd rather be in the reverse position (selling said car and being able to buy some interesting old computers...)] A Tesla is a rathe

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 5:53 PM Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > > On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 19:56, Tony Duell wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 7:24 PM Liam Proven via cctalk > > wrote: > > > > There were also some pretty high-spec British microcomputers, but they > > tended to flop owing to t

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

Most languages will give you some way to shoot yourself in the foot. The question is how much work do you need to do? In FORTRAN the easiest method was changing the value of a literal in a subroutine call. It is standard compliant behavior that goes back to at least FORTRAN IV. Current complie

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 2020-05-30 15:21, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: On Fri, 29 May 2020, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: Oh, FORTRAN can do likewise--I suspect that most languages can be coaxed (perhaps with some assembly-language subroutines)to do something nasty. "A real programmer can write a FORTRAN program

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 19:56, Tony Duell wrote: > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 7:24 PM Liam Proven via cctalk > wrote: > > There were also some pretty high-spec British microcomputers, but they > tended to flop owing to the price. Things like the HH Tiger (did it > ever go into production? Prototype

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

Chuck, your post just reminded me of how I used FORTRAN to interface with my PDP-11 ASM routines when I was doing data acquisition as fast as possible on a MINC system. Perused my FORTRAN code about 6 months ago and had common blocks and a routine which took "arrays" which were essential chu

RE: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Fri, 29 May 2020, Dave Wade via cctalk wrote: -Original Message- From: cctalk On Behalf Of Bill Gunshannon On 5/29/20 5:24 PM, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote: At the risk of fanning the language fire, C seems to be a smaller step up from native machine language than most other languag

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Fri, 29 May 2020, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: Oh, FORTRAN can do likewise--I suspect that most languages can be coaxed (perhaps with some assembly-language subroutines)to do something nasty. "A real programmer can write a FORTRAN program in any language." But, a REAL programmer, such as Ch

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

At 05:05 PM 5/29/2020, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: >One reaason why you don't hear much about that is because the first version of >Microsoft Fortran for the PC wasn't real great. >It was written in Microsoft Pascal. Really! How does this connect to Microsoft's FORTRAN-80 for CP/M circa 1977?

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

value of 5 for all programs on the machine. 2) Naming a program with my first name (Norm) and having it go into an infinite loop when it did a floating point calculation. From: "cctalk" To: "cctalk" Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 4:32:38 PM Subject: Re: Microsoft open sourc

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

> On May 29, 2020, at 5:24 PM, Jim Brain via cctalk > wrote: > > On 5/29/2020 4:06 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: >> >>> On May 29, 2020, at 4:25 PM, Norman Jaffe via cctalk >>> wrote: >>> >>> C is portable by design and runs on many architectures. >>> It doesn't need 512Kb of RAM and

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/29/20 3:41 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: Yes, a pointer to the PC Interrupt Vector Table could be problematic. > > C lets you do a lot of things that some other languages will protect you > from.  Accordingly, Allen Holub titled one of his books about C, "Enough > Rope To Shoot Yourself I

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/29/2020 5:08 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: On 5/29/20 5:24 PM, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote: At the risk of fanning the language fire, C seems to be a smaller step up from native machine language than most other languages.  It's like 80% of the portability with 20% of the effort of

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Fri, 29 May 2020, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: Yes. But the same is true for many languages. Fortran is a particularly good example, but there are plenty of portable languages (Algol, Basic, LISP, Python, COBOL, Ada, RPG, ...). Some more than C; for example, C doesn't like one's compleme

RE: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

> -Original Message- > From: cctalk On Behalf Of Bill Gunshannon > via cctalk > Sent: 29 May 2020 23:09 > To: cctalk@classiccmp.org > Subject: Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC > > On 5/29/20 5:24 PM, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote: > > > > At the risk o

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/29/20 5:24 PM, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote: At the risk of fanning the language fire, C seems to be a smaller step up from native machine language than most other languages.  It's like 80% of the portability with 20% of the effort of writing directly in ASM. PL/M? bill

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Fri, 29 May 2020, ben via cctalk wrote: BTW Microsoft also had Fortan, You don't hear much about that. Ben. One reaason why you don't hear much about that is because the first version of Microsoft Fortran for the PC wasn't real great. It was slow. A Sieve Of Erastothanes benchmark compiled

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/29/2020 4:06 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: On May 29, 2020, at 4:25 PM, Norman Jaffe via cctalk wrote: C is portable by design and runs on many architectures. It doesn't need 512Kb of RAM and it doesn't depend on Unix. Yes. But the same is true for many languages. Fortran is a pa

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

> On May 29, 2020, at 4:25 PM, Norman Jaffe via cctalk > wrote: > > C is portable by design and runs on many architectures. > It doesn't need 512Kb of RAM and it doesn't depend on Unix. Yes. But the same is true for many languages. Fortran is a particularly good example, but there are p

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

C is portable by design and runs on many architectures. It doesn't need 512Kb of RAM and it doesn't depend on Unix. From: "cctalk" To: "cctalk" Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 1:20:56 PM Subject: Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC On 5/29/2020 12:42 PM, John Fo

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/29/2020 12:42 PM, John Foust via cctalk wrote: At 10:59 AM 5/29/2020, Jecel Assumpcao Jr via cctech wrote: The modern variation of the Turing Tarpit. At least they come to this illusion honestly given that you even have people who think implementing Forth in C is the way to go. What, are

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

At 10:59 AM 5/29/2020, Jecel Assumpcao Jr via cctech wrote: >The modern variation of the Turing Tarpit. At least they come to this >illusion honestly given that you even have people who think implementing >Forth in C is the way to go. What, are you saying that someone couldn't write some Perl or P

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 7:24 PM Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > We had simple cheap low-spec computers because American high-end > computers were impossibly expensive. There were also some pretty high-spec British microcomputers, but they tended to flop owing to the price. Things like the HH Ti

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 18:17, Toby Thain via cctalk wrote: > > > > And I have had earnest youngsters on Twitter and elsewhere very > > seriously tell me that _no_ language could even theoretically be > > immune to the problems of C, because _all_ languages are implemented > > in C at the lowest le

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 2020-05-29 8:20 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 21:40, John Ames wrote: > >> Agreed. While I'm much more favorably disposed towards C than you are, >> the increasing homogeneity of almost all modern languages is >> discouraging ... > > Indeed so. > > And I have had

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

Liam Proven wrote on Fri, 29 May 2020 14:20:53 +0200 > And I have had earnest youngsters on Twitter and elsewhere very > seriously tell me that _no_ language could even theoretically be > immune to the problems of C, because _all_ languages are implemented > in C at the lowest level. The modern va

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 21:40, John Ames wrote: > Agreed. While I'm much more favorably disposed towards C than you are, > the increasing homogeneity of almost all modern languages is > discouraging and, I think, detrimental to the field as a whole. Forth > and Smalltalk alike were eye-openers whe

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Thu, 28 May 2020, Mike Stein via cctalk wrote: Is nobody going to mention the cute little MC-10 (the only R-S computer I ever owned, briefly, aside from the M100), purportedly the cheapest colour-capable computer at the time ? The QUESTION (which has been dropped from the quoting chain) was

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

> Is nobody going to mention the cute little MC-10 (the only R-S computer > I ever owned, briefly, aside from the M100), purportedly the cheapest > colour-capable computer at the time ? The one that Creative Computing infamously referred to as the "poor man's CoCo"? ;) -- ---

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

[NON-CP/M home computers] What IS a "home" computer? I say that an unexpanded TRS80 is a home computer. EXPANDED, it can have other uses. If you take total number sold, MINUS sales of the expansion interface, then you will have the number. Although it was not Z80, the original ads for the

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

PM Subject: Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC > On 5/28/2020 12:38 PM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: >> >>> Yes. TRS80. >>> >>> It had a memory map that was incompatible with CP/M. BASIC in ROM at the >>> bottom, and RAM at the top. >> Which one?

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/28/2020 1:24 PM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: . Evidently, there exists a lower bound of functionality of computing capability in the US, and the little wedge just didn't make it. No no. It wasn't that. It was _money_. I think we're saying the same thing, but... I agree all things re

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/28/2020 4:50 PM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 2:54 PM Jim Brain via cctalk wrote: I see the 16A and the 12/16B as different sublines, as the II/16A used a passive backplane with cards, while the 12/16B/6000 had a motherboard with the z80 on it, and the card cage wa

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 2:54 PM Jim Brain via cctalk wrote: > I see the 16A and the 12/16B as different sublines, as the II/16A used a > passive backplane with cards, while the 12/16B/6000 had a motherboard > with the z80 on it, and the card cage was for extensions (and the 68K > card). > > Both

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

Jim Brain wrote on Thu, 28 May 2020 15:54:10 -0500 > On 5/28/2020 12:38 PM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > > ? TRS-80 Colour, AKA CoCo -- 6809 > Started life as a farming-related Videotex terminal.  Pics will show the > amazing similarity.  Was a joint venture between Motorola and Tandy, and >

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/28/2020 12:38 PM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: Yes. TRS80. It had a memory map that was incompatible with CP/M. BASIC in ROM at the bottom, and RAM at the top. Which one? As they're purely a theoretical concept to me and AFAIK I've never actually touched one, the profusion of models

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

For want of a POP, Tandy Radio Shack computers became relegated to the scrape heap. Their word processing program, SCRIPSIT, had a bug in the block text copy/move command that garbled large documents. I was able to buy a bunch of Model III/IV from a law firm that switched to MSDOS machines becau

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 28-05-2020 19:38, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > Now, the *nix weenies who know nothing else thing you could learn > Python in a week. Yeah right. Well, I did... Julf

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Thu, 28 May 2020, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 21:11, geneb wrote: CP/M was huge in the US, especially among the S-100 system users. It was a pretty narrow window though - from probably 1978-1982. Kaypro had a good portion of the market as well, but like pretty mu

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 21:11, geneb wrote: > > CP/M was huge in the US, especially among the S-100 system users. It was > a pretty narrow window though - from probably 1978-1982. Kaypro had a > good portion of the market as well, but like pretty much all the other > manufacturers of CP/M machine

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Thu, 28 May 2020, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: I guess I am realising that CP/M was a much bigger deal there than here. CP/M was huge in the US, especially among the S-100 system users. It was a pretty narrow window though - from probably 1978-1982. Kaypro had a good portion of the mar

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 21:52, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote: > > Well, *I've* heard of them, but I enjoy knowing about such things. Most > in the US do not. *Nod* Shame but it's fair enough. I think there is at the least an article (and possibly an entire university course module) comparing Europe

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 6:38 PM Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > > Americans were oblivious to anything that wasn't in USA. > > Yes. :-( > > > Yes. TRS80. > > > > It had a memory map that was incompatible with CP/M. BASIC in ROM at the > > bottom, and RAM at the top. > > Which one? The Model 1

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 21:35, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > > Well, there were some products whose role was to SHEAR THE SHEEP. > The Apple3 belonged in a shearing section. Maybe even the Lisa, although > that wasn't its intended role. (?) > When I taught C, we gave the course a prerequisite o

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

Liam Proven wrote: > I don't know. There is a huge amount of tradition and culture in > computing now, and as a result, few people seem to have informed, > relatively unbiased opinions. There hasn't been much real diversity in > decades. > > 25 or 30y ago, people discussed the merits of Smalltalk o

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/26/20 9:24 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: On 5/26/2020 1:35 PM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: Of course, COBOL is even older and also had structures. Not everybody had access to power computing, some had to make do with a PDP 7 and write Unix. You seem to place very high needs on COBOL.

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 27/05/2020 11:55, Peter Corlett via cctalk wrote: It's better now, though. Price differences can be explained by delivery costs, import duties, and VAT/sales tax. And in the case of 1977, middlemen who exploit the difficulty in importing stuff oneself. The USA is some sort of gravity well whe

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 02:19:41PM -0700, Yeechang Lee via cctalk wrote: [...] > Longstanding tradition in the British computers market. > "*New Scientist* stated in 1977 that 'the price of an American kit in dollars > rapidly translates into the same figure in pounds sterling by the time it has >

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

Fred Cisin says: > But, instead, it looked as though they just replaced the dollar sign > with pound sign, and ignored the exchange rate! So, you paid about > twice as much for the machines. I have heard prices of PET: 600 > pounds (V $600), Apple: 1200 pounds (V$1200), and TRS80: 500 pounds > (V

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

Al Kossow wrote: >> Algol W was from Eroupe? > Algol W was from Stanford, written by Wirth when he was there I wonder if there's any connection to Stanford's SAIL language?

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/26/20 6:39 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote: Algol W was from Eroupe? Algol W was from Stanford, written by Wirth when he was there Actually, by Dick Sites http://bitsavers.org/pdf/stanford/cs_techReports/STAN-CS-71-230_Algol_W_Reference_Manual_Feb72.pdf

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

Algol W was from Eroupe? Algol W was from Stanford, written by Wirth when he was there

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/26/2020 1:35 PM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: "did O/S's change" in what way? You had ample memory to run your programs without swapping providing only a few users were online. The IBM PL/I F compiler was available in 1966 and PL/I has structures. It was usable on all "real" System/360

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/26/2020 6:30 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > > Outside of CP/M were *any* mainstream American home computers Z80 > > based before the C128? Yes.  TRS80. I guess that I just have the wrong definition of "home computer". It is subjective, and I will concede that MY definition may not be

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

> > Outside of CP/M were *any* mainstream American home computers Z80 > > based before the C128? Yes.?? TRS80. Should we include Murray's Adam? (what percentage of Adam owners bought the add-on disk drives?) Even the 5150 was a home computer with cassette, and no drives. How many people here

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

> FOlks know about IBM, > but most don't know they still make mainframes and midrange (OS400 or > whatever it is called now) machines, and Burroughs, Funny thing is that even many IBMers I come across do not realize that Unisys is still in the mainframe business, and still actively develops hardwa

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 1:52 PM Jim Brain via cctalk wrote: > FOlks know about IBM, > but most don't know they still make mainframes and midrange (OS400 or > whatever it is called now) machines, and Burroughs, Wang, Amdahl, > Hitachi are missed. , Super computer is forever linked with Cray, but >

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/26/2020 2:34 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: Yes.  TRS80. Hmm, I always thought of the Model 1,3,4 (and the II/12/16/6000) as business machines, like the Kaypro and such, not home computers, but I guess I consider the PET a non home computer as well. Jim

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/26/2020 1:54 PM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: Interesting that you echo word-for-word the phrase used by a commenter on my blog. (I try to remember to turn all my longer ClassicCmp answers into blog posts.) "A gateway drug". Yes, indeed. :-) But I guess most American readers have ne

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 1:56 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > On Fri, 22 May 2020, Boris Gimbarzevsky wrote: > > Thanks for posting the timeline of various Basic interpreters. I wasn't > > aware that Gates/Allen also wrote Basic for C64. > > Microsoft did a BASIC for the Commodore PET. I wasn'

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 1:54 PM ben via cctalk wrote: > On 5/22/2020 1:38 PM, Rod Smallwood via cctalk wrote: > > I remember sittig in the DEC Ealing (London) Office in 1975 watching a > > programmer work on TOPS 10 > > > > That was DEC's mainframe operating system. > > > > A foot high of printou

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Tue, 26 May 2020, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: I do not know what a "sheering section" means. Typo: "cheering". :-) Aha! I still didn't know, but that, I could Google. Gotcha. Well, there were some products whose role was to SHEAR THE SHEEP. The Apple3 belonged in a shearing section. Ma

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 18:50, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote: > > TO help save a few bits in everyone's mailbox, I will link to some docs: > > http://forum.6502.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1514 Whoah. OK, TMI for this dilettante. I think the only CBM kit that went through my home was a C16 I fixed for

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 6:55 PM Liam Proven wrote: > > On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 18:25, Tony Duell wrote: > > Yes we did!. The only TRS-80 that I know not to have been officially > > sold in the UK was the Color Computer 3 > [...] > > As I said -- I saw them in the shops. I know they were sold. I j

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 18:25, Tony Duell wrote: > > Err, the Acorn Atom could do colour at least in some graphics modes. > It used the 6847 video chip that turned up in the Tandy Color > Computer/Dragon. Maybe the base machine was monochrome video only, but > there was a PAL encoder board availabl

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 17:49, Adrian Graham via cctalk wrote: > > On 26 May 2020, at 12:57, Liam Proven via cctalk > > wrote: > > > > & the Isle of Man. :-) > > Suddenly your comments about Trash-80s and MSX machines makes perfect sense > too :) Fair enough. Small island country, with about 2

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/26/2020 9:50 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 20:53, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote: Too late to fix silicon, the 6522 issue surfaced. What 6522 issue? TO help save a few bits in everyone's mailbox, I will link to some docs: http://forum.6502.org/viewtopic.php?f

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 12:44 PM Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > > And whereas it's easy to forget now, I think the roles of colour and > sound in gaining the attention of children is underestimated. > > I look at the specs and capabilities of something like the Acorn Atom > in 1980 -- _way_ ahea

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

> On 26 May 2020, at 12:57, Liam Proven via cctalk > wrote: > > On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 23:17, Adrian Graham via cctalk > wrote: >> >> >> Wait, PETs didn’t have graphics and Tic Tac Toe didn’t exist? Where did you >> LIVE? > > The _name_ was new to me. > > & the Isle of Man. :-) > Sudd

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 20:53, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote: > Too late to fix silicon, the 6522 issue surfaced. What 6522 issue? This is way more depth about a machine I never owned than I personally ever knew, I have to admit... > Oh, and re-use all the VIC peripherals to save NRE costs! I h

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 23:17, Adrian Graham via cctalk wrote: > > > Wait, PETs didn’t have graphics and Tic Tac Toe didn’t exist? Where did you > LIVE? The _name_ was new to me. & the Isle of Man. :-) -- Liam Proven – Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk – gMail/gTalk

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 20:51, Adrian Graham via cctalk wrote: > Quite a few Australians might not share your view that Dick Smith was > ‘niche’, Europeans may, largely because they’ll have never heard of him in > Europe. For proper niche see the RCA-1802 powered COMX-35. I do remember the COMX

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 20:49, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > > I apologise for offending you. Sloppiness and insnesitivity on my part, > not a deliberate attempt. Just saddened, Fred, not offended. I never had a ZX81, but the door-wedge joke is as old as the machine. I think its historical posi

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

> On 25 May 2020, at 20:58, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote: > > On 5/25/20 11:51 AM, Adrian Graham via cctalk wrote: >> For proper niche see the RCA-1802 powered COMX-35. > > There is some talk of building a replica > > https://twitter.com/TubeTimeUS/status/1264585081659641857 > > Oh! Yes, I

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

> On 25 May 2020, at 15:17, Liam Proven via cctalk > wrote: > > Since we don't have anything called Tic-tac-toe in the UK -- the game > is called "Noughts and Crosses" -- it took me a little while to work > out what it was and what it was doing, but once I did, I could play > against it. On a

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/25/20 11:51 AM, Adrian Graham via cctalk wrote: For proper niche see the RCA-1802 powered COMX-35. There is some talk of building a replica https://twitter.com/TubeTimeUS/status/1264585081659641857

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/25/2020 1:53 PM, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote:  IEC bus cycle is too short (20uS) half cycle http://www.zimmers.net/anonftp/pub/cbm/faq/trivia/cbm-trivia-08.txt Question $07B gives more detail. Jim

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/25/2020 11:44 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 05:14, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote: The serial interface would have been fast enough, if the MOS folks had talked to the design team about the bug and squashed it early. But, they did not, and on the VIC-20, which did n

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

> On 25 May 2020, at 17:44, Liam Proven via cctalk > wrote: > > And yet, despite that, there was a profusion of machines. Z80 and 6502 > and 6809. MS BASIC and MSX. The big American makes: Atari and Tandy > and Apple. The big European makes: Sinclair, Oric, Amstrad. The niche > ones: Sord, Sp

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

I apologise for offending you. Sloppiness and insnesitivity on my part, not a deliberate attempt. PETSCII/PETASCII character graphics were almost as good as TRS80 character graphics!:-) https://i2.wp.com/www.the8bitguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Commodore-History-Part-1-The-Pet-0011-PE

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 04:17:25PM +0200, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: [...] > So, yes, PETSCII lets you draw some stuff, but I was only about 12. It really > wasn't enough to grab me for long, not for the price of a car. If you prefer the price of your wheels to be around £205, there's this just

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 05:14, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote: > The serial interface would have been fast enough, if the MOS folks had > talked to the design team about the bug and squashed it early. But, they > did not, and on the VIC-20, which did not expect to move many drives, no > one cared. Wh

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

Thanks. I believe the official name is CW for Character Windows, probably to avoid that confusion. Get Outlook for iOS On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 10:24 AM -0400, "Liam Proven via cctalk" wrote: On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 03:42,

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 03:42, Richard Cini wrote: > > Thanks Liam. Oberon is pretty interesting. I may download that just to see it > in action. I’ve used a ton of 3Com cards so the setup program is pretty > familiar. I haven’t used DESQview, well, since I had it installed on my > Compaq DeskPr

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Sat, 23 May 2020 at 22:24, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > > On Sat, 23 May 2020, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > > It is pretty much the *same* BASIC in the PET, VIC-20 and C64. It got > > trivial adjustments for the hardware, but bear in mind: the PET had no > > graphics, > > PETSCII/PETASCII

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/23/2020 10:25 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: Again, misleading.  The Z80 was not a design goal.  a 2MHz C64 compatible with 80 columns was the design goal.  THank the Z80 on some Marketing shmuck that promised CP/M compatibility on the unit (thinking the C64 CP/M cart would work, which

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

Hello all, I started with a VIC, I then got a C-64, C-128, A1000, A2000 which I converted into an A2000T, the A3000T and finally an A4000T. I eventually broke down and got a 486 machine and installed Win2000 on it. Argh! I kept my A4000T for years after I got the 486. I networked them tog

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Sat, 23 May 2020, Boris Gimbarzevsky wrote: Thanks for that really detailed review of microprocessor history! A post to save. But, read carefully the corrections that others made! Such as Noel pointing out that I was mistaken in assuming that there was a direct progression in 4004 -> 8008 -

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

Later it offered the C128, which had multiple operating modes, including a much better BASIC and an 80-column display, but also an entire incompatible 2nd processor -- a Z80 so it could run CP/M. This being the successor model to the early-'80s home computer used by millions of children to play v

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/23/2020 1:55 PM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: The C64 also had a very expensive floppy disk drive (with its own onboard 6502 derivative, ROM & RAM) but a _serial_ interface to the computer, so it was both dog-slow and very pricey. The serial interface would have been fast enough, if the MO

  1   2   >