Discussion:
Basic 7.0 for Windows
(too old to reply)
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
2005-01-02 06:17:26 UTC
Permalink
Ok, I'm sure this will sound stupid to people but Basic 7.0 on the 128
was just awesome. The sprite commands, the sound commands, the
graphic controls, it was just an awesome basic.
Is there anything like that for Windows? Is VB 6 or .NET a good
version basic for Windows? Can anybody recommend something for
Windows?
If you, like me, love Commodore Basic 7.0, you will hate anything
that is made by microsoft. They have the wrong philosophy.
Instead of the direct control that Basic 7.0 gives you, they
hide the "under the hood" details from you.

The best BASIC (even better than Commodore Basic 7.0!) for Windows
is the PowerBASIC Console Compiler. It isn't free, but the $169.00
will pay for itself a dozen times over.

See [ http://www.powerbasic.com/products/pbcc/ ] for details.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/>


http://www.powerbasic.com/products/pbcc/
Scott McDonnell
2005-01-02 07:25:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
If you, like me, love Commodore Basic 7.0, you will hate anything
that is made by microsoft. They have the wrong philosophy.
Instead of the direct control that Basic 7.0 gives you, they
hide the "under the hood" details from you.
You do realize that Basic 7.0 was written by *Microsoft*, right?
At least according to my recollection and this page confirms it:
http://www.npsnet.com/danf/cbm/languages.html#BASIC

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Scott McDonnell
William R Ward
2005-01-02 07:41:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott McDonnell
Post by Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
If you, like me, love Commodore Basic 7.0, you will hate anything
that is made by microsoft. They have the wrong philosophy.
Instead of the direct control that Basic 7.0 gives you, they
hide the "under the hood" details from you.
You do realize that Basic 7.0 was written by *Microsoft*, right?
http://www.npsnet.com/danf/cbm/languages.html#BASIC
Correct me if I'm wrong.
My understanding was that it was written by Commodore but they gave
Microsoft credit (and a share of the proceeds) since the original
BASIC was from Microsoft.
--
William R Ward ***@wards.net http://bill.wards.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help save the San Jose Earthquakes - http://www.soccersiliconvalley.com/
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
2005-01-02 12:24:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by William R Ward
"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote...
Post by Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
If you, like me, love Commodore Basic 7.0, you will hate anything
that is made by microsoft. They have the wrong philosophy.
Instead of the direct control that Basic 7.0 gives you, they
hide the "under the hood" details from you.
You do realize that Basic 7.0 was written by *Microsoft*, right?
http://www.npsnet.com/danf/cbm/languages.html#BASIC
Correct me if I'm wrong.
My understanding was that it was written by Commodore but they gave
Microsoft credit (and a share of the proceeds) since the original
BASIC was from Microsoft.
Here is what by Ian Matthews says:

"The COMMODORE BASIC Operating System was written by Bill Gates
and Paul Allen from their fledgling Micro-Soft Corporation (later
renamed to Microsoft Corporation). Commodore Basic was the only
software license ever granted by Microsoft to any company for
all products regardless of the number of copies used. Commodore
went on to produce literally millions of machines with various
forms of Commodore Basic and did not pay Microsoft a single
cent after the initial licence purchase in 1976/7. If anyone
knows how much this licence cost Commodore I would love to know
so please send me an email."

Here is what Steve Rush says::

http://www.emsps.com/oldtools/msbasv.htm

"Apple had commissioned Microsoft to write Applesoft, a BASIC
interpreter for the Apple II, to replace the limited Apple
Integer BASIC. The Apple II was an eight-bit system, but based
on a different processor, the 6502. Other companies, such as
Commodore, adopted this processor and licensed Microsoft's
6502 BASIC, but wrote their own operating systems, as did Apple."


Here is what Bill Gates says:

http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/speeches/2004/02-25Carnegie-Mellon.asp
Speech by Bill Gates, February 2004
"That was in an era of eight-bit personal computers: the TRS-80,
Commodore 64, Apple II. You only find those in museums today,
but they did have one thing in common, which was that they all
ran Microsoft BASIC; that is, they came with a piece of software
that we created to let you sit down and program those machines,
write games, write business applications."

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/bob/04-28-98hqconference.asp
Speech by Bill Gates, February 2004
There was a generation of machines that came after that, so-called
9-bit machines, TRS-80, Commodore 64, Apple II, all of which included
Microsoft BASIC in as their fundamental software. It was the equivalent
of not only the language but the operating system, everything, and
you could type in BASIC statements to do graphics and games and business
software

http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/speeches/2004/02-25Cornell.asp
Speech by Bill Gates, February 2004
"the second generation, which was the Apple II, TRS-80, Commodore 64,
all of those running Microsoft Basic built into the machine, and
then in 1981 to the IBM PC."

http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/speeches/7-23finan.asp
Speech by Bill Gates, May 1998
"Microsoft Basic was kind of an amazing product because it had to
run in 4K bytes. Memory was very expensive back then, and just
getting anything to run on these machines was pretty hard. But
that was really our biggest product for quite some time. It ran
on the Commodore Pet, the TRS-80, the Apple II computer, every
personal computer that came out in the '70s was standardized
around Microsoft Basic."

Also see:
http://addressof.com/blog/articles/VBTimeline.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_BASIC
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/>
Guy Macon
2005-01-02 13:44:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/speeches/2004/02-25Cornell.asp
Speech by Bill Gates, February 2004
"the second generation, which was the Apple II, TRS-80, Commodore 64,
all of those running Microsoft Basic built into the machine, and
then in 1981 to the IBM PC."
I found another one. Note that Bill Gates claims to have
designed PetASCII:

http://www.cwheroes.org/oral_history_archive/william_h_gates/index.asp
"In the case of Apple, Wozniak had done the Integer BASIC. And he
was playing around thinking about doing a floating point BASIC.
I don't know why he never got around to it, but they knew they
needed one, and so they had Jobs and Randy Wiggington came out
and talked to us. And I put the cassette extensions in integrated
into their ROM. And that became what was called AppleSoft BASIC.

In terms of Commodore PET, they started with us from the very
beginning. Because we helped Chuck Pedal, who was at Commodore
at that time, really think about the design of the machine.
Adding lots of fun characters to the character set, things
like smiley faces, and suit symbols. That was the first machine
we did that had this wild extended character set. All these
machines started out using cassette-based storage, where we
could store about 1,200 baud worth of data on these cassette
tapes."
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
2005-01-02 13:07:57 UTC
Permalink
(Has anyone ever seen a Microsoft copyright notice on any Commodore
BASIC, in literature, on screen, or embedded in the code?)
The second legend is that the Jack Tramiel did never pay a cent in royalties
to Microsoft, thus upsetting the greedy Bill Gates. The story goes that Jack
bought the proprietary rights to an early Microsoft Basic, Gates agreed,
because he was unable to deliver a 6502 version of its Basic, Commodore
reworked the code and went on developing it on its own.
We know that this legend is wrong, because we know that Microsoft
was able to deliver a 6502 version of its Basic to Apple.


From the Apple2 history at
http://apple2history.org/history/ah16.html

Back in 1975 and 1976, Microsoft was producing BASIC interpreters
for nearly every microprocessor that was produced, in hopes of
licensing or selling their BASIC to those who built a computer
around that chip. In mid-1976, Microsoft's first employee, Marc
McDonald, was given the job of creating a version of BASIC that
would run on the then-new 6502 microprocessor, even though there
not yet any computers that used that processor. They became aware
of Steve Wozniak's efforts in designing his 6502 computer (the
Apple-1), and one of Microsoft's programmers called Steve Jobs to
see if he would be interested in a BASIC language for this
computer. Jobs told him that they already had a BASIC (remember
that Wozniak had been writing BASIC interpreters before he even
had a computer on which to run them), and if they needed a better
one, they could "do it themselves over the weekend".

Even without a potential customer for this product, McDonald
worked on this BASIC, using a modified 6800 microprocessor
simulator (the 6800 had an instruction set that was similar to
the 6502). For several months Microsoft had their 6502 BASIC
sitting on a shelf, unwanted and unused. But by October 1976 they
finally had a contract to put this interpreter into the new
Commodore PET computer that was being designed. This would
ultimately become the first time that BASIC was included with a
computer built into the ROM, rather than being loaded from a
paper tape, disk, or cassette. However, the contract Microsoft
had with Commodore was no good to them at that time, as far as
income was concerned; it stipulated that they would not be paid
until some time in 1977, when the computer was to be finished and
ready to ship. With income and cash reserves running dangerously
low, Microsoft was given a reprieve by none other than Apple
Computer.[12]

Apple was receiving increasing numbers of requests by users of
the Apple II for a floating point BASIC. Integer BASIC (which
Wozniak had also at one time called "Game BASIC") worked well for
many purposes, and a skilled programmer could even make use of
the floating point routines that were included in the ROM of
Integer BASIC.[15] However, the average Apple II user was not
satisfied with Integer BASIC, especially as it made them unable
to easily implement business software (where the number to the
right of the decimal point is as important as the one to left).
Wozniak tried to make modifications to his Integer BASIC to make
use of the floating point routines, but at that time he was also
hard at work on designing the Disk II interface card, and his
efforts on creating a floating point BASIC fell further and
further behind. Consequently, Apple's management decided to go
back to Microsoft and license the 6502 floating point BASIC that
had been offered to them in 1976.

In August 1977, Apple made a $10,500 payment to Microsoft for the
first half of a flat-fee license that they were able to
negiotate. Typically, Microsoft would license its BASIC on a
royalty basis; they would be paid a set fee for every copy of
BASIC that went out the door -- in this case, with every computer
that was sold. The fact that Microsoft was willing to concede and
let Apple license their 6502 BASIC on a flat-fee basis is a
reflection of the financial straits that Microsoft was under.[13]
The version Apple licensed was almost identical to the MITS
extended BASIC that Microsoft had previously written for the
Altair 8800.[4],[5] At Apple, Randy Wigginton was assigned the
job of incorporating into Microsoft's BASIC the graphics commands
that were unique to the Apple II.
Cameron Kaiser
2005-01-02 19:13:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
(Has anyone ever seen a Microsoft copyright notice on any Commodore
BASIC, in literature, on screen, or embedded in the code?)
On every Commodore 128 in native mode, it says (C)1977 MICROSOFT as
part of the credit banner when you turn it on.

--
Cameron Kaiser * ***@floodgap.com * posting with a Commodore 128
personal page: http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/
** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! **
** http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/ **
Guy Macon
2005-01-03 01:12:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cameron Kaiser
On every Commodore 128 in native mode, it says (C)1977 MICROSOFT as
part of the credit banner when you turn it on.
<boggle>

That just goes to show how the mind works. I must have seen that
screen thousands of times. As soon as I get home tonight I will
remove the cartidge expander and the CP/M boot disk and see the
mark of the beast on the opening screen of my beloved C128D. ):

D'oh!
Martijn van Buul
2005-01-03 14:24:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cameron Kaiser
Post by Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
(Has anyone ever seen a Microsoft copyright notice on any Commodore
BASIC, in literature, on screen, or embedded in the code?)
On every Commodore 128 in native mode, it says (C)1977 MICROSOFT as
part of the credit banner when you turn it on.
And, ofcourse, there's the

WAIT 6502,x

(with 0 < x < 256)

easter egg found in early PETs. I really don't think Tramiel put that one
in..
--
Martijn van Buul - ***@dohd.org - http://www.stack.nl/~martijnb/
Geek code: G-- - Visit OuterSpace: mud.stack.nl 3333
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...' Isaac Asimov
Jim Brain
2005-01-03 03:50:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
(Has anyone ever seen a Microsoft copyright notice on any Commodore
BASIC, in literature, on screen, or embedded in the code?)
The C128 Basic 7.0 has Microsoft copyright notice one the startup screen

Notice that the copyright is 1977, which means it's the original BASIC
license from Microsoft for the PET.

Jim
--
Jim Brain, Brain Innovations
***@jbrain.com http://www.jbrain.com
Dabbling in WWW, Embedded Systems, Old CBM computers, and Good Times!
Rick Balkins
2005-01-03 06:37:33 UTC
Permalink
Commodore originally licenced PET version Microsoft BASIC v1.0
I believed somewhere along the line Commodore acquired the proprietary
rights between 1977 and 1980 because by the time Vic-20 came out - the BASIC
was "Commodore BASIC".

This meaning, once Commodore just outright bought the rights to it by giving
some hefty chunk of cash. Commodore basically aimed to by the PET version of
Microsoft Basic and thus all subsequent versions were based on it. Basically
Commodore expanded the BASIC either by its software division (which was
small but possibly capable of doing this) or contracted someone to do it.
Possibly Microsoft since they originally wrote it.
Post by Jim Brain
Post by Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
(Has anyone ever seen a Microsoft copyright notice on any Commodore
BASIC, in literature, on screen, or embedded in the code?)
The C128 Basic 7.0 has Microsoft copyright notice one the startup screen
Notice that the copyright is 1977, which means it's the original BASIC
license from Microsoft for the PET.
Rick Balkins
2005-01-02 21:00:15 UTC
Permalink
Every version of BASIC since BASIC v1 from the PET is "Commodore BASIC"
because Commodore owns the proprietary rights to the version of the BASIC
used on the PET, VIC and every version since for the Commodore 8-Bit. (not
including the PC line)

They ONLY gave Microsoft credit JUST to shut them the F*** up but they still
did not get a single cent from the later PETs, CBM, Vic-20, B-series and
P-series and C64/128, 64c, 128d or EVEN c65. They got $0.

Since Commodore pretty much owned "PET BASIC and subsequent versions".
Microsoft owns the 8088,8086 BASICs aka MS-BASIC also aka GW-BASIC and maybe
Apple BASIC. But Commodore basically bought the rights upfront. Sure Bill
got a hefty amount for the rights but it was miniscules compared to the
potential royalties that Billy did not get. Besides, why should Microsoft
need more money anyway.
Post by William R Ward
My understanding was that it was written by Commodore but they gave
Microsoft credit (and a share of the proceeds) since the original
BASIC was from Microsoft.
Scott Wyatt
2005-01-03 22:46:50 UTC
Permalink
Good to see the place active, for a bit...

MS did a lot right before Windows. I happen to think QuickBASIC and the
PDS had a lot of promise. We can see that Borland (and PowerBASIC) took
a good idea and made things a lot better!

For a time, there was competition, even on the C64 line. There was Simon
BASIC and a few others I cannot recall. Competition is a good thing.

I miss having PowerBASIC CC the more I use my Macintosh. I would love to
have PowerBASIC on BSD/OS X, as well as Linux. I am now using REALbasic
and find it very slow, poorly optimized, and generally not up to the
task when strings are involved.

If there were any way to beg, beg, beg for a PowerBASIC on OS X... let
me know! I've done a lot with RB, now, but I still don't like it. GUI is
nice, but speed also matters.

Oh, well...
Guy Macon
2005-01-06 07:55:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Wyatt
I miss having PowerBASIC CC the more I use my Macintosh. I would love to
have PowerBASIC on BSD/OS X, as well as Linux. I am now using REALbasic
and find it very slow, poorly optimized, and generally not up to the
task when strings are involved.
If there were any way to beg, beg, beg for a PowerBASIC on OS X... let
me know! I've done a lot with RB, now, but I still don't like it. GUI is
nice, but speed also matters.
There is only one thing that will (possibly) lead to a Linux/OS X
version of PowerBASIC Command Compiler: multiple potential customers
politely asking if there is a Linux version and multiple potential
customers politely asking if there is a BSD/OS X version. Perhaps you
can do that, Scott?

It is, in my opinion, important to ask about PB/CC and not
PB/Win, because PB/Win would be a *lot* more work to port.
I we get PB/CC and it sells well, it will lead to PB/Win
later.
Scott Wyatt
2005-01-05 21:51:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Macon
There is only one thing that will (possibly) lead to a Linux/OS X
version of PowerBASIC Command Compiler: multiple potential customers
politely asking if there is a Linux version and multiple potential
customers politely asking if there is a BSD/OS X version. Perhaps you
can do that, Scott?
It is, in my opinion, important to ask about PB/CC and not
PB/Win, because PB/Win would be a *lot* more work to port.
I we get PB/CC and it sells well, it will lead to PB/Win
later.
REALbasic is pretty much "the" commercial cross-platform BASIC right
now. BlitzMAX is going to try to add GUI support across systems, but
right now Blitz is best-suited for game development. The GUI controls
exist in Blitz3D on Windows, already.

PowerBASIC seems "stalled" right now -- as if they stopped doing much of
anything but minor tweaks to CC and Windows.

All I care about is a nice, fast, terminal/console version to test logic
and routines. I know I couldn't market anything that isn't GUI to most
customers, but I do use CC for client projects in which speed is king. I
like it a lot for those clients and they understand GUI can mean "SLOW"
in some cases.

There are a lot of alternatives to PB now, but I think there is a lot of
need for a commercial alternative to the products. Especially on
non-Windows platforms!

Darn, I can hope...
Scott Wyatt
2005-01-05 22:08:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Macon
There is only one thing that will (possibly) lead to a Linux/OS X
version of PowerBASIC Command Compiler: multiple potential customers
politely asking if there is a Linux version and multiple potential
customers politely asking if there is a BSD/OS X version. Perhaps you
can do that, Scott?
I just submitted the question. We'll see what happens. I use BOCHS or
VirtualPC at the moment and run PB DOS when I want to test ideas. How
sad is that? I use REALbasic for GUI development, but am still not
impressed -- it is weak on speed, especially on Linux. The Mac speed is
so-so, most of the time.

REAL needs PowerBasic's dedication to quality and speed. Too bad no one
cares to take over REAL Software.

- Scott
Bill Riel
2005-01-06 17:24:33 UTC
Permalink
In article <mNednYjwOvvb-EHcRVn-***@comcast.com>, ***@comcast.net
says...
Post by Scott Wyatt
REAL needs PowerBasic's dedication to quality and speed. Too bad no one
cares to take over REAL Software.
- Scott
Scott, have you looked at FutureBASIC for the Mac? It is Mac only, but
it can do pretty fast console apps if that's what you like:
http://www.stazsoftware.com

The version I have is really a classic application tho it can compile
OSX binaries. I believe that they are now shipping an OSX native IDE
(might be time for me to upgrade).
--
Bill
Scott Wyatt
2005-01-06 21:58:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Riel
Scott, have you looked at FutureBASIC for the Mac? It is Mac only, but
http://www.stazsoftware.com
The version I have is really a classic application tho it can compile
OSX binaries. I believe that they are now shipping an OSX native IDE
(might be time for me to upgrade).
I looked at it, but my programming partner uses VB and REALbasic. It was
hard enough to get him to embrace PowerBASIC on a project... until he
saw the speed we acheived parsing files.

I think FutureBasic also needs to consider their pricing. For $169, you
do not get database access -- which is all our apps do. Business
software isn't about much else, that's for sure. If links to MySQL and a
generic JDBC/ODBC driver existed, less of an issue. We use PowerBasic to
work with CSV and fixed-width files moving from AS400 to Excel on Windows.

As far as I can tell, FutureBasic doesn't look like the DOS/Windows
BASICs. Even the samples show this "LONGIF" thing that should simply be
an "IF" as far as I'm concerned. Doesn't mean it wouldn't work, but it
would require rethinking a lot of things we do on Windows. It would also
mean a lot more effort to support Win/Mac/Linux.

PowerBasic officials hint at a Linux edition. I hope it is not limited
to x86 only; ideally it is portable to other processors. I can dream.
Loading...