visual basic, Wihdows XT, MSDOS and QBasic

Wihdows XT, MSDOS and QBasic

Author	Message
Clif Pen #1 / 15	Wihdows XT, MSDOS and QBasic Has anyone with Windows XT used the MSDOS sub-system to run either QB4.5 or QBasic? Thanks in advance,
Sun, 04 Jul 2004 06:24:01 GMT

John Morriso #2 / 15	Wihdows XT, MSDOS and QBasic That's Windows XP, not XT. ... Quote: > Has anyone with Windows XT used the MSDOS sub-system to run either > QB4.5 or QBasic? > Thanks in advance,
Sun, 04 Jul 2004 12:29:10 GMT

Tom Lak #3 / 15	Wihdows XT, MSDOS and QBasic Quote: > Has anyone with Windows XT used the MSDOS sub-system to run either > QB4.5 or QBasic? They both work great with Windows XP but I've never tried them with "XT"! 8-) Tom Lake
Sun, 04 Jul 2004 14:38:33 GMT

Clif Pen #4 / 15	Wihdows XT, MSDOS and QBasic Quote: >Has anyone with Windows XT used the MSDOS sub-system to run either >QB4.5 or QBasic? >Thanks in advance, No idea why I typed XT instead of XP. Sorry, but a name brand computer sales person told me that Windows XP would not run MSDOS programs. I did find a posting on the web that mentioned a sub-system for MSDOS. What I should have asked is if anyone has loaded this sub-system and PROGRAMMED in QB4.5 or QBasic? Clif
Mon, 05 Jul 2004 00:30:15 GMT

Marc van den Dikkenbe #5 / 15	Wihdows XT, MSDOS and QBasic Quote: >>Has anyone with Windows XT used the MSDOS sub-system to run either >>QB4.5 or QBasic? >>Thanks in advance, >No idea why I typed XT instead of XP. Sorry, but a name brand computer >sales person told me that Windows XP would not run MSDOS programs. I >did find a posting on the web that mentioned a sub-system for MSDOS. >What I should have asked is if anyone has loaded this sub-system and >PROGRAMMED in QB4.5 or QBasic? Windows XP, like Windows 2000, does not have a native DOS layer underneath it, but it does have a command prompt that runs pretty much every DOS program you can throw at it. The only DOS programs that could give you problems are those that try to access hardware directly, and want to control the various devices (video card, extended memory, etc.) directly... In reality that means that pretty much every 'vanilla' DOS program & basic flavor will run with absolutely no problems, but if you have a ~1994 'state of the art' MS-DOS game that uses all kinds of funky ways to directly control the hardware in an attempt to squeeze a little more speed out a computer, there is a chance that those won't work. -- Marc van den Dikkenberg -- The powerbasic Archives -- http://www.xlsior.org
Mon, 05 Jul 2004 11:00:27 GMT

Vonota #6 / 15	Wihdows XT, MSDOS and QBasic Quote: > No idea why I typed XT instead of XP. Sorry, but a name brand computer > sales person told me that Windows XP would not run MSDOS programs. I > did find a posting on the web that mentioned a sub-system for MSDOS. > What I should have asked is if anyone has loaded this sub-system and > PROGRAMMED in QB4.5 or QBasic? > Clif Don't expect DOS games to work, but QBasic, QB4.5, FreeBasic all work just fine (just don't expect them to cope with long filenames) XP has a DOS sub-system built into it, Start - Run - CMD
Mon, 05 Jul 2004 19:05:30 GMT

Andreas Meil #7 / 15	Wihdows XT, MSDOS and QBasic Quote: > No idea why I typed XT instead of XP. Sorry, but a name brand computer > sales person told me that Windows XP would not run MSDOS programs. I > did find a posting on the web that mentioned a sub-system for MSDOS. In the company I work, I installed a Windows XP test machine on which I access over the Internet using TSCLIENT, so I played a little with it: QBasic and even the old GWBASIC.EXE work fine, even run over the remote desktop! :-) Some folks in our German webmaster group (=> http://www.qbasic.de/forum/ ) told that the TIMER function does not work correctly, but I can't confirm that; while my own tests, TIMER worked properly. Andreas
Tue, 06 Jul 2004 20:30:34 GMT

Lance Edmon #8 / 15	Wihdows XT, MSDOS and QBasic As I understand it, XP prevents DOS apps from setting the OS system clock, ie, with the TIME$ statement. I believe TIMER itself should work fine. Quote: >Some folks in our German webmaster group (=> http://www.qbasic.de/forum/ ) >told that the TIMER function does not work correctly, but I can't confirm >that; while my own tests, TIMER worked properly. > Andreas Lance PowerBASIC Support ------------------------------------------------------------------------- PowerBASIC, Inc. \| 800-780-7707 Sales \| "We put the Power in Basic!" 316 Mid Valley Center \| 831-659-8000 Voice \| http://www.powerbasic.com
Thu, 08 Jul 2004 19:25:51 GMT

Andreas Meil #9 / 15	Wihdows XT, MSDOS and QBasic Quote: > As I understand it, XP prevents DOS apps from setting the OS system > clock, ie, with the TIME$ statement. You could be right. Well, when a BASIC programmer changes the clock to only implement a stop watch function, i.e. instead ' Correct: t1! = TIMER ' Do your time-extensive stuff here t! = TIMER - t1! unsing ' Incorrect: NEVER do it so! TIME$="00:00:00" ' time-expensive stuff t! = TIMER that's a really poor programming style... :-( Except an date/time setting tool which is intended to insert into the C:\AUTOEXEC.BAT file on an old IBM PC/XT computer which hadn't a battery clock, you really never use the TIME$="new:ti:me" assignement. Today in the Internet age, using an NTP (=> http://www.ntp.org/ ) client to synchronize the time to a reference atomic clock server in the Internet, ist the recommended way to keep the correct clock time. Andreas
Thu, 08 Jul 2004 22:00:44 GMT

HPhreacker 2002(? #10 / 15	Wihdows XT, MSDOS and QBasic Marc van den Dikkenberg escreveu na mensagem ... Quote: >>>Has anyone with Windows XT used the MSDOS sub-system to run either >>>QB4.5 or QBasic? >>>Thanks in advance, >>No idea why I typed XT instead of XP. Sorry, but a name brand computer >>sales person told me that Windows XP would not run MSDOS programs. I >>did find a posting on the web that mentioned a sub-system for MSDOS. >>What I should have asked is if anyone has loaded this sub-system and >>PROGRAMMED in QB4.5 or QBasic? >Windows XP, like Windows 2000, does not have a native DOS layer underneath >it, but it does have a command prompt that runs pretty much every DOS >program you can throw at it. The only DOS programs that could give you >problems are those that try to access hardware directly, and want to >control the various devices (video card, extended memory, etc.) directly... >In reality that means that pretty much every 'vanilla' DOS program & basic >flavor will run with absolutely no problems, but if you have a ~1994 'state >of the art' MS-DOS game that uses all kinds of funky ways to directly >control the hardware in an attempt to squeeze a little more speed out a >computer, there is a chance that those won't work. If the program use INP,OUT,PEEK(return wrong results),POKE, machine language(assembly)... - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Quote: >-- >Marc van den Dikkenberg >-- >The PowerBASIC Archives -- http://www.xlsior.org
Thu, 23 Sep 2004 07:11:10 GMT

Marc van den Dikkenbe #11 / 15	Wihdows XT, MSDOS and QBasic On Sat, 6 Apr 2002 20:11:10 -0300, "HPhreacker 2002(?)" Quote: >>In reality that means that pretty much every 'vanilla' DOS program & basic >>flavor will run with absolutely no problems, but if you have a ~1994 'state >>of the art' MS-DOS game that uses all kinds of funky ways to directly >>control the hardware in an attempt to squeeze a little more speed out a >>computer, there is a chance that those won't work. >If the program use INP,OUT,PEEK(return wrong results),POKE, machine >language(assembly)... Depends on the kind of things its checking -- there are plenty of peeks & pokes that work just fine under Win2000/XP, windows automatically redirects these to the correct location. -- Marc van den Dikkenberg -- The PowerBASIC Archives -- http://www.xlsior.org
Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:33:52 GMT

Michael Mattia #12 / 15	Wihdows XT, MSDOS and QBasic Quote: > On Sat, 6 Apr 2002 20:11:10 -0300, "HPhreacker 2002(?)" > >>In reality that means that pretty much every 'vanilla' DOS program & basic > >>flavor will run with absolutely no problems, but if you have a ~1994 'state > >>of the art' MS-DOS game. that uses all kinds of funky ways to directly > >>control the hardware... > >If the program use INP,OUT,PEEK(return wrong results),POKE, machine > >language(assembly)... > Depends on the kind of things its checking -- there are plenty of peeks & > pokes that work just fine under Win2000/XP, windows automatically redirects > these to the correct location. It's also true that Windows offers many, many more 'official' methods to query the hardware than did MS-DOS. And, on the all-32-bit OS's (NT, 2K, XP), port I-O gets redirected though a software layer anyway: INP and OUT no longer offer that "pure" hardware access so performance improvements will not be as dramatic as those you get under MS-DOS. Besides, machines are so much faster today than they were in '94; spending hours trying to squeeze out a couple of extra clock ticks ain't worth what it used to be. MCM
Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:28:23 GMT

Michael Mattia #13 / 15	Wihdows XT, MSDOS and QBasic Quote: > On Sat, 6 Apr 2002 20:11:10 -0300, "HPhreacker 2002(?)" Just a little assistance here, Mr.Phreacker... A search of the trademark and patent office (http://www.uspto.gov/ use "search trademarks" link) fails to return any results on the tokens "hphreacker" or "phreacker". You had better contact the USPTO or the attorney who registered your trademark pronto, as your registration appears to have been mishandled. Unless you misunderstand the usage of the symbols....Until your registration is finalized, you should not use the "R" symbol, you should use the "TM" symbol instead. MCM
Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:53:52 GMT

Marc van den Dikkenbe #14 / 15	Wihdows XT, MSDOS and QBasic On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 12:28:23 GMT, "Michael Mattias" Quote: >It's also true that Windows offers many, many more 'official' methods to >query the hardware than did MS-DOS. And, on the all-32-bit OS's (NT, 2K, >XP), port I-O gets redirected though a software layer anyway: INP and OUT no >longer offer that "pure" hardware access so performance improvements will >not be as dramatic as those you get under MS-DOS. >Besides, machines are so much faster today than they were in '94; spending >hours trying to squeeze out a couple of extra clock ticks ain't worth what >it used to be. But there still is a balance here -- unfortunately way too many people think "Why bother spending 5 minutus optimizing this routine, everyone has a gigahertz+ CPU anyway", resulting both in a tremendous waste of processing power and the exclusion of people who DON'T have the latest state-of-the-art hardware. Sure, there is much less need to 'go to the max' with optimizations, but some programmers are simply -too- lazy, which results in nunneccesarily bloated programs... -- Marc van den Dikkenberg -- The PowerBASIC Archives -- http://www.xlsior.org
Fri, 24 Sep 2004 04:58:56 GMT

Andreas Meil #15 / 15	Wihdows XT, MSDOS and QBasic Quote: > >Besides, machines are so much faster today than they were in '94; spending > >hours trying to squeeze out a couple of extra clock ticks ain't worth what > >it used to be. [...] Quote: > Sure, there is much less need to 'go to the max' with optimizations, but > some programmers are simply -too- lazy, which results in nunneccesarily > bloated programs... The best way today is a good compromise; a good BASIC code should be readable (no such tricks as usual in assembly an C, for example j = (e++) + (f++ ? g+=3 : h-=4); ) but still optimized, i.e. not created ten and more abstraction layer modules for a simple task, so for a sub routine call, ten SUB calls are necessary. Andreas
Mon, 27 Sep 2004 03:55:30 GMT

Page 1 of 2

[ 15 post ]