An IBM PS/2 286 back in 87 had a base price of $3500 and a 386 started>around $7k. So you can see why even an older tech PC at $500bucks would
Same stuff still happens now... not everyone runs out and buys a new i7>system. Lots of <$500 computers out there with really cut down CPU's.
For many things, the 8088 could hold it's own with> a 80286, or slow 80386sx...
today's standards, resources. I think all my early IBM XT's had a
video card rather than anything integrated but some graphics jobs
were ridiculously slow. I can remember converting a plain 640x480
image from one graphics format to another and it was, start it going
and go out for coffee or something because it was going to be chugging
away at it for the next 30 or 40 minutes. Oh, and running PKZip on
anything big-sh. I remember a friend getting an early 386DX and I
was blown away with how fast he could Zip a file...
Speaking of graphics though, admittedly the first computer graphics
I ever saw that made me go Wow! was on an Apple. IBM's were still
mostly CGA with some slightly better options just coming out, Hecules,
EGA and such, when I saw an Apple system in a shop window displaying
a picture that had metalic colours in it that looked almost real..
Possibly it was their first 256 colour adaptor because I'm sure there
was nothing higher at that time.
I agree, in the 80s and early 90s, I sometimes wondered why IBM compatibles were lagging in the graphics area. Couldn't IBM or some of the graphics car manufacturers at the time have skipped past CGA and hired some of the same engineers who were developing the types of graphics for Apple & Amiga system
away at it for the next 30 or 40 minutes. Oh, and running PKZip on
anything big-sh. I remember a friend getting an early 386DX and I
was blown away with how fast he could Zip a file...
In some ways, I somewhat miss those days, when getting a newer/faster system made a big difference in common activities like that. With today's computer things like compressing a few files or converting a few images takes a split second no matter what. Speed improvements in computers today seem to genera affect larger-scale things, such as video editing & conversion, compressing larger amount of files/data, real-time graphics realism, etc..
Actually there was VGA stuff way back then. the problem was the only
ones who could afford to pay for it (businesses) generally had no need.
were ridiculously slow. I can remember converting a plain 640x480I had a 4.77mHz PC/XT clone with an 8087 Math Coprecessor someone gave me, wanted so badly to find someone to burn my BIOS at the time that had QFresh, SMAX, and several other utilities built in to the BIOS, so that it'd have a speed-up and enhanced drive formatting without any TSR's needed, taking up Zero Memory since it'd be buried into ROM that the computer wouldn't normally use. I'd also typically install both a MDA and CGA card on the computer, such that the MDA would be used as Free RAM for custom programming. I ran a lot of test on it, doing multiple loops of continous multiplacations and divisions, etc. The 8087 would out perform my 80386 DX 40 at the time, and usually the 80486sx! I'd love to use WinRAR to compress a custom data file I'd make by writing 20 megabytes of binary Zeros. I'd rename the file and compress it to something like maindocs.txt, then rename it and compress it as techspecs.txt and compress it in with the same file.... Then rename it to circuit.dwg and compress it. Sometimes get creative and create a EXE header that'd point to a single instruction that'd exit back to DOS with extra baggage of 20 megs, and rename it to setup.exe .... e-mail it to someone and they get this 5-10k RAR file that they open it to view and say "No Way, 20 megs compressed down to 10 bytes?" They can't help but uncompress it.... Yup, it's 20 megs each! WinRAR was right! Oh and it looks like your hard drive is running low on disk space... May want to clear up a little free space.... ;-) You really want to be creative, see how many times you can get away with it... ;-) Take that 20 meg file as 4-5 different names and zip it up into ACAD-CRK.ZIP, WIN31.ZIP, DOS622.ZIP, PSP-FULL.ZIP, and 40-50 other files similiarly named.... Then RAR all of them together as JULYWRZ.RAR and e-mail it to someone.... Tell them you got it off a BBS and haven't had a chance to look at it... ;-)
image from one graphics format to another and it was, start it going
and go out for coffee or something because it was going to be chugging
away at it for the next 30 or 40 minutes. Oh, and running PKZip on
anything big-sh. I remember a friend getting an early 386DX and I
was blown away with how fast he could Zip a file...
They had a few systems that wasn't as lacking, but because of that, they wasn't as compatible. Herculees made some impressive sounding video cards that did color, but wasn't too popular. Commodore PC Colt came with a 16-color CGA that was quite impressive! As did the Tandy, both was basically the same video card, but the Colt lacked the tandy sound. AT&T had a 640x480 monochrome mode added onto the CGA. Clever hackers every once in a while would use the extra memory to do 4-color graphics in 640x200 mode. Was not documented at all how they did it, complicated as heck from what I saw. Now where the bottle neck occurs is this: Consider the IBM PC/XT. The original processor was 4.77mHz. If I'm not mistaken the original PC/XT bus didn't actually run at 4.77mHz, think it was more like 2mHz, but when the PC/AT came along, cards where designed for 10mHz standard XT speed, and the PC/AT running at 10 mHz had a round a 4mHz bus speed for XT, and think 8mHz for AT when running at 10mHz. Now, even if you ran a 16mHz AT Compatible 286, your bus ran at 8 mHz on 16-bit slots and 4mHz on XT slots if I'm not mistaken. (This has REALLY BEEN A WHILE!) So when the 80386's came along and had AT style bus architecture, you'd slap on a VGA video card and if it was an AT style card (16-bit), it'd run at 8 mHz, if it was an XT style (8-bit), it'd run at 4mHz. Even with your 80386 running 33mHz, the video was still chugging away at 8mHz, so you had to apply 4 wait states, causing the CPU to twiddle it's thumbs when writing to any 16-bit card on the bus. The CPU would use 8 wait states on the XT cards. Now they later used DMA on some transfers for sound, and even occasionally video transfer (especially video), but not your average program. This took a different aproach, instead of the CPU writing to the BUS, the CPU setup the DMA controller, told it what you wanted to do, then allowed it to transfer the memory to the bus, while the CPU goes on processing the next instruction. Great, but not effective for updating 1-2 characters on the screen. Now, with that in mind, we go back to the AT&T 6300. The side of the case has this big massive full-lenght card with a propriatary specialized 16-bit slot that can only be used for the video card. That low-life CGA with 640x480 monochrome had a 16-bit bus to the CPU that was only used for video transfer. It couldn't be removed! It could be disabled, but you needed to add special chips and go through herdles! Video writes was done from a 16-bit 8086 to a 16-bit video card via a propriatary 16-bit bus that unlike the PC/XT slots, this bad boy ran at the speed of the CPU and wasn't concerned with compatibility! That's why when folks like me went from an AT&T 6300 (XT Class running I think 8 mHz 8086) that clocked out equivilent to a 10mHz PC/XT on an 8088, to a PC/AT compatible running 16mHz (whoo hoo! 2 times as fast), the video just really didn't seem to make me jump up and shout! In fact, the CGA monitor with an EGA adapter kinda felt like I downgraded to an Atari 2600. Later, I got a VGA graphics card for it, and even bought some of the top of the line graphics cards. They where faster than the EGA, but still kinda seemed not spectacular for speed. Improving the speed of the CPU bought you a little speed increase, but you still are going through a limited bus speed. VESA bought you even more speed, when it come out, I understand if you was lucky enough to have an EISA, it'd buy you even more speed. But nothing like tossing a direct line from your video-card to your CPU and your memory to your CPU.... You want speed, throw it all on the mother board and you MAKE the standards! Don't go by everyone else's standards! Likewise, that lowly CGA and MGA had the same identical chipset used in a Commodore 64, but since they didn't tie all the ports to the PC, you couldn't swap colors like you could on Commodore in the middle of a character being re-written, or while the border is being drawn, etc. It's kinda about like taking a Porche 911 Twin Turbo, removing the gear shift linkage and gear shift, welding the transmission into the first gear, then selling it on e-bay as an economy car with no reverse.today's standards, resources. I think all my early IBM XT's had aI agree, in the 80s and early 90s, I sometimes wondered why IBM
video card rather than anything integrated but some graphics jobs
were ridiculously slow. I can remember converting a plain 640x480
image from one graphics format to another and it was, start it going
compatibles were lagging in the graphics area. Couldn't IBM or some of
the graphics card manufacturers at the time have skipped past CGA and
hired some of the same engineers who were developing the types of graphics for Apple & Amiga systems and such? :P
Actually there was VGA stuff way back then. the problem was the only
ones who could afford to pay for it (businesses) generally had no need. Monochrome was fine for them. Some of those early video cards were
nearly as expensive as the computer. Apple wasn't really any cheaper
tho, they just marketed it diferently. IBM and PC compatibles were marketed mainly as a business machine. Also remember most of those
apples with the higher end graphics had fairly low resolution. But the added color definitely helped with the 'wow' factor.
Part of the problem is bloat. DOS was DOS, regardless of whether it was running on an XT, AT, or 386. Nowadays, it seems like OS requirements
drive hardware development.
...And I do miss those days sometimes -- making a disk cache out of XMS memory, tweaking memory with DOS upper memory managers, and combining a mailer, BBS, utilities and more on a box with a fraction of the power of what we have nowadays.
For monochrome graphics, I thought the Hercules graphics card was fairly goo I had one of those in my first computer, with a Samsung amber monitor. Shar graphics, and not bad for B&W games. I was happy when I got a VGA card and monitor though.
Yeah, I much prefered mono over CGA... CGA's text mode (and the rest really) just looked crappy.
My first VGA I forget the card, probably Paradise, but for ages all I
had was a mono-VGA monitor. Same rez, just only grayscale. Couldn't afford a color VGA for a while. And again, for text the mono-vga looked nicer then color... so I kepted the mono one for my BBS and whatnot.
> > video card rather than anything integrated but some graphics jobstoday's standards, resources. I think all my early IBM XT's had a
In some ways, I somewhat miss those days, when getting a newer/faster system>made a big difference in common activities like that. With today's computers
> > I ever saw that made me go Wow! was on an Apple. IBM's were stillSpeaking of graphics though, admittedly the first computer graphics
I agree, in the 80s and early 90s, I sometimes wondered why IBM compatibles>were lagging in the graphics area. Couldn't IBM or some of the graphics card
VGA (I think.. EGA maybe..) card for it - the video card bigger than
most computers these days.. I couldn't afford a colour monitor for it
Good enough resolution to tell key colours in the early FPS Games like
Duke Nukem and Commander Keen. B)
Picking up computers in the earlier days - 1982 - I watched a lot of
things evolve quickly as computers migrated from business use only
(and geek freak) to home use and I sort of felt something was lost
every time they brought out software to make things easier to use.
Picking up computers in the earlier days - 1982 - I watched a lot of
things evolve quickly as computers migrated from business use only
(and geek freak) to home use and I sort of felt something was lost
every time they brought out software to make things easier to use.
Have you watched the BBS documentary? Some of the older sysops lamented the fact that someone could just install a BBS package and call themselves a sys without knowing assembler. :)
Have you watched the BBS documentary? Some of the older sysops lamented the fact that someone could just install a BBS package and call themselves a sysop without knowing assembler. :)
Happens everywhere. :) Software engineers whining that the 'new kids' only know 'object oriented' and don't know C or assembly.... Web developers complaining about folks who use Dreamweaver.... gamers
i didnt like the bbs doc. i dont know if everyone he interviewed was THAT boring, because he would take these long trips out there and then only
show 1-2 mins of the interview on the bbs doc.
Have you watched the BBS documentary? Some of the older sysops lamented
the fact that someone could just install a BBS package and call themselves
a sysop without knowing assembler. :)
My first VGA card was a Trident TVGA9000. It had a small amount of memory (256KB, I think), but it worked well for a while with the games I played.My first VGA card was a RealTek 640x480x16 VGA card. I went from an AT&T 6300 (640x400x2, 640x200x2, and 320x200x4) to an EGA with a CGA monitor (640x200x16 max) to a VGA w/ VGA monitor (I think it could do 800x600x16, but that was about all it did non-standard VGA at the time). Later, went to Trident, then Paradise, then the Mac Daddy of them all... The ATI All-In-Wonder! Then this video card that had a big blue thingy for the video input/output for TV and stuff, then nVidia
Perhaps it was because he interviewed many people, and he had to make a decision about what to include and figured it would be fair to include as ma people as possible. I enjoyed the documentary - It definitely took me back the BBS days, and it's what inspired me to start running a BBS again.
Do you agree or disagree with them, or were you just pointing it out? :)
--- NIGHTFOX wrote --
Re: Anyone With A Tandy 1000
By: Poindexter Fortran to ROB MCCART
Have you watched the BBS documentary? Some of the older sysops lamente
the fact that someone could just install a BBS package and call themsel
a sysop without knowing assembler. :
Do you agree or disagree with them, or were you just pointing it out? :
Do you agree or disagree with them, or were you just pointing it out? :
I kind of agree with them. I think that to use a computer on the Internet you should need a license, like Amateur Radio.
You should have to do something like log into a UNIX shell account and modify your .profile or something...
People can say what they want about the BBS documentary, but it documented
a period in time for many of us, and he got it out there. I've had callers cite it as a reason for calling. And, good or bad, he got out there and did it.
I liked it, personally. I think he captured a period of time but could have ended with a chapter on the current scene and had it be a bit less memoir-ish.
Perhaps it was because he interviewed many people, and he had to make a decision about what to include and figured it would be fair to include as many people as possible. I enjoyed the documentary - It definitely took me
I kind of agree with them. I think that to use a computer on the Internet you should need a license, like Amateur Radio.
You should have to do something like log into a UNIX shell account and modify your .profile or something...
but he could have done some due diligence with some research. I do
remember the documentary saying something about telnet BBSs though.
That's true. It's pretty cool that the BBS documentary has gotten users to call BBSs these days.
The 8087 would out perform my 80386 DX 40 at the time
I'd love to use WinRAR to compress a custom data file I'd make by writing 20>megabytes of binary Zeros. I'd rename the file and compress it to something
Back in those days, it was good to install the same DOS on a much>more powerful machine, knowing you'll get that much more speed &
You should have to do something like log into a UNIX shell account and modif your .profile or something...
I can't see that since the 8087 was 2 generations slower and 1/8 theYou're referring to the 80486DX with a math coprocessor and the 80486SX not having one. The 80386DX was a 32-bit CPU with a 32-bit BUS. The 80386SX was a 32-bit CPU with a 16-bit BUS and missing certain features of the DX version. The 80386DX had no Math Coprocessor, unless you purchased a 80387DX. The 80386 could Emulate an 80387, but not at the speed of an 80387 or even at the speed of the 8087. The 80386SLC was a Low Powered 80386 made for Laptops. The SLC being an SX low powered. The Intel 80386DX processors only went upto 33 mHz, while the AMD 80386DX went upto 40mHz. Cyrix 80386's tended to have Cx in front if I'm not mistaken.
cycle speed of 386DX which, correct me if I'm wrong, HAD a math
co-processor built in. The 386SX was the 386 without a math co-pro and
the 386 SLC was effectively a 286 (IBM AT) that could read 386 code.
I've seen files purposely designed to compress from a huge file intoI prefer to call it "Test-ware", as the data files where not released to anyone besides myself, all data files remained on my hard drive as well as the RAR files. For the record, I still to this day have my doubts on the effective speed of the built in math coprocessor compared to a seperate math coprocessor.
a tiny archive file designed to mess up people's drives when
uncompressed.. So you were basically creating Malware?..
remember the documentary saying something about telnet BBSs though.
he said nothing about telnet bbses.
That's true. It's pretty cool that the BBS documentary has gotten users to call BBSs these days.
i think it's got old sysops to call bbses. i dont think users even know about it.
Ha.. yes I remember upgrading from I think a 4.77 mhz 8088 to an
8 Mhz 8086 or something and games that I'd been using would suddenly
run so fast they were unplayable. Little utilities came out to slow
down your computer so you could still use them.. Science takes a
giant step backwards.. B)
I had a 4.77mHz PC/XT clone with an 8087 Math Coprecessor....
i think it's got old sysops to call bbses. i dont think users even know abou it.
You're referring to the 80486DX with a math coprocessor and the 80486SX n having one. The 80386DX was a 32-bit CPU with a 32-bit BUS. The 80386SX was 32-bit CPU with a 16-bit BUS and missing certain features of the DX version.
I remember that being a fairly common issue, and I believe that was a main reason why PCs used to have a "turbo" button; normally the computer would ru on the fast speed, but the turbo button would let you slow down the PC to pl games that were too fast at the normal speed.
--- NIGHTFOX wrote --
I can understand your thinking there, but at the same time, I think that i the same way people don't need a license to use a telephone, they shouldn' need a license to use the Internet, as it's a fairly public-domain system. don't think requiring a license to use the Internet would do much to preve abuse, either
Ironic that instead of people using the switch to speed up the system, it was really left on and used to slow it down at times. I think the
marketeers would have rather sold a TURBO button than a COMPATIBILITY
button any day. :)
Saved for historical reference - that was a great summary of several years of CPUs. Those were interesting times for hardware; I was working at aFunny thing about that.... During the time, I was helping a friend who had
game company and we burned through hardware in 6-12 months.
was really left on and used to slow it down at times. I think theI liked the extra light, especially when it was on the button itself.
marketeers would have rather sold a TURBO button than a COMPATIBILITY
button any day. :)
it to help him out. He'd hire this guy who was lucky to know what a computer was to do "Sales". He'd butcher it so badly, and a friend caught him good on it. He advertised we sold a 80386DX-40 with an Intel
Processor. My friend had no problems with it, my other friend working for free said "They don't make an Intel 80386-DX 40!" Would you believe, 2 months later, PC Magazine had an article where they talked about the differences, and company names, etc. The crazy thing is they mentioned
only AMD had a DX 40, Intel had the DX-33.
A bunch of the low-powered
chips got kinda confusing, especially when you bring in Cyrix (very weird chip naming schemes!), and there was a few other companies.... Seems like
it started with a T.... Texas Instruments maybe? Not a popular one, but
it went dirt cheap.... On the 80386's, they where all pretty much pin-compatible. You buy a motherboard, they all worked with any company, though personal experience, Cyrix gave me more problems. Probably because they tended to run a little hotter, and there was a few compatibility
issues on the CPU its self. (made for easy detection).
The AMD's tended
to be the choice for quality up till the Pentium series.
them famous. There's also the CPU I never really actually got to see.... Heard a lot about it, maybe someone here can help you out... You see, something happened with the DEC Alpha processor. Intel wanted it, but
there was a conflict thingy that said for them to get it, 4-5 other companies had to have equal parts of the technology. AMD was the #2 contender for it. I think this is the chip modern CPU's are designed
from. This was a serious work horse that was designed from ground up to do like 5 task at a time with serious multi-processing and number crunching
> > most computers these days.. I couldn't afford a colour monitor for itVGA (I think.. EGA maybe..) card for it - the video card bigger than
I remember there being some fairly big expansion cards back then.. I remembe>there being the notion of a "full-size" card, which by definition meant that
> > Duke Nukem and Commander Keen. B)Good enough resolution to tell key colours in the early FPS Games like
Commander Keen and the first Duke Nukem games weren't FPS, they were>side-scrollers.
> > things evolve quickly as computers migrated from business use onlyPicking up computers in the earlier days - 1982 - I watched a lot of
I've felt that too. Before Windows 95, for instance, I felt like most people>talked to who were into computers had good technical knowledge about computer
One of the most disappointing instances was around 1995 and I told>one of my friends that I run a BBS, and he said "What's a BBS?".
Have you watched the BBS documentary? Some of the older sysops lamented the>fact that someone could just install a BBS package and call themselves a syso
Sorry.. I assumed that the earlier ones just weren't "3D" but that
if you were shooting guys it was still a First Person Shooter (FPS) game..
Yes.. at the time I was on 7 or 8 of them and some had international
access. I was 'e-mailing' before Internet was readily available with
people all over the world. I still have friends I talk to frequently
in other countries, some on other continents, that I 'met' on a BBS
20 to 25 years ago.
advertised we sold a 80386DX-40 with an Intel Processor. My friend had no problems with it, my other friend working for free said "They don't make an Intel 80386-DX 40!" Would you believe, 2 months later, PC Magazine had an article where they talked about the differences, and company names, etc. Th
That could be true. I wonder how many former BBS users (non-sysops) have se it though. But people who never did use BBSs probably aren't searching for information these days..
I've had several people call my system, never having called a BBS before, who cite that documentary (or perhaps some articles they've read) as the reason for their call. Typically these are younger people with some interest in computer history, who ran into some reference to BBSs while reading stuff online and then followed up on it.
Was it perhaps a Sun CPU?I think it was, and now that you mention it, I think AMD did come up with the first 64-bit insturction set. Though I never really got into the 64-bit instructions. From what I read up on, the SSE instructions seemed to primarily require you to perform the same operation on a group of 8 or more memory locations. At the time, I didn't have a whole lot of need for that, so they where pretty much useless to me as a programmer. I can see were if I had a 3-D object or something and I wanted to rotate the entire object, it'd be useful, but for downloading information off the internet, averaging information, etc. would be totally useless, since you'd be adding to the same memory location, and dividing it by the number of records you received, only 1 variable.... Not like you want to divide the entire bunch by a single number.... Pretty much ended my keeping up with the latest and greatest insturction sets...
When you mentioned modern CPUs, you reminded me that I had heard that it
was AMD who came up with the 64-bit x86 extension that PCs are now using, and even Intel has implemented that instruction set. What used to be
called the AMD64 architecture is now called x86-64 because both AMD and Intel implement it in their CPUs.
> > 8 Mhz 8086 or something and games that I'd been using would suddenlyHa.. yes I remember upgrading from I think a 4.77 mhz 8088 to an
I remember that being a fairly common issue, and I believe that was a main>reason why PCs used to have a "turbo" button
Interesting that that isn't a problem anymore - most games these>days must implement an algorithm to keep things going at a "normal"
I think it was, and now that you mention it, I think AMD did come up
with the first 64-bit insturction set. Though I never really got into
Re: Anyone With A Tandy 1000h
By: Chris Trainor to Poindexter Fortran on Wed Aug 01 2012 17:47:50
Happens everywhere. :) Software engineers whining that the 'new kids' only know 'object oriented' and don't know C or assembly.... Web developers complaining about folks who use Dreamweaver.... gamers
On the flip side, there are also valid arguments to be made for using newer NI>technologies rather than sticking to older technology only because one feels NI>better with it. As a software engineer, I can program object-oriented or NI>functional (with C, etc.), but I prefer object-oriented because I think it NI>produces cleaner and more organized code. Also, newer programming languages NI>and technologies often offer programmers to be more productive, and when NI>working for a company, time is money. That said, much of my programming NI>experience has been with C++. I have done some C#, though, and I think it is
good language, and I'll admit I feel more productive using C# than C++.
Back in those days, it was good to install the same DOS on a much
more powerful machine, knowing you'll get that much more speed &
power out of it.
Ha.. yes I remember upgrading from I think a 4.77 mhz 8088 to an
8 Mhz 8086 or something and games that I'd been using would suddenly
run so fast they were unplayable. Little utilities came out to slow
down your computer so you could still use them.. Science takes a
giant step backwards.. B)
A Progidy CD that I have has a Windows 3.x program called C-- on it.If I'm not mistaken, c--'s biggest fault is that the limited function set hinders it for any type of useful programs, causing a programmer to get frustrated finding something to put their skills to use with. That, and if your going to learn C, then .... "Learn C", rather than playing around with a C derrivitive. In this age when you can obtain free C compilers and C++ compilers, there is no reason not to learn C or C++. Now I know there's standard C, but despite how hard core you are, and what your goal is, you will rarely use 100% PURE ANSI STANDARD C. with that in mind, you will be forced to learn either Microsoft or Borland libraries. Once you do that, you'll find all C and C++ compilers have libraries that are either compatible with Microsoft, Borland, both, or a sub-set of one or more. I'd seriously look into Borland C++ command line compiler if your wanting to start doing C++ on windows. For Linux, use the GNU C++/gcc/etc. compilers.
Have you heard of that one?
GW-Basic and Q-Basic, I've looked at Visual Basic code but couldn'tYou should really try PowerBasic 10.0 and PowerBasic CC 6.0! Especially
get in the groove with it.
> > if you were shooting guys it was still a First Person Shooter (FPS) game..Sorry.. I assumed that the earlier ones just weren't "3D" but that
ah.. Typically, "first person shooter" refers to 3D shooter games where you>have the first person view of the charcater.
> > access. I was 'e-mailing' before Internet was readily available withYes.. at the time I was on 7 or 8 of them and some had international
That's cool. I have rarely run into people I knew back in the BBS days..>although I didn't really get to know many people very well from the BBS days.
A Progidy CD that I have has a Windows 3.x program called C-- on it.
Have you heard of that one?
I have always been interested in the inner workings of programs so I
tried out C-- to see if it would help me learn C. It didn't.
I tried looking at a Disassembly of several C=64 games to try to see
what made them work but got in over my head. <GRIN>
I haven't written a Q-Basic program in a long time.
I just lurk in here to learn what the folks who know this stuff KNOW.
if your going to learn C, then .... "Learn C", rather than playing around with a C derrivitive. In this age when you can obtain free C compilers
and C++ compilers, there is no reason not to learn C or C++. Now I know
At the time, talking maybe 1989 or so, you could do BBS mail that was swapped internationally, but it meant a couple of days turn-around
You could also request files from the internet through an FTP message,
sort of robo-sent to you, although I never got into that too much.
The cost at the time was $50 a year for access but I got it free
because I moderated the techie conference on the BBS...
Re: Anyone With A Tandy 1000h
By: Ed Vance to NIGHTFOX on Mon Aug 06 2012 08:19:00
A Progidy CD that I have has a Windows 3.x program called C-- on it.
Have you heard of that one?
I have always been interested in the inner workings of programs so I tried out C-- to see if it would help me learn C. It didn't.
I haven't heard of C--. But from the name, it doesn't sound like it would b good learning tool.. But I'm probably wrong. :)
I tried looking at a Disassembly of several C=64 games to try to see
what made them work but got in over my head. <GRIN>
It is difficult to get the idea of a program from reading assembly code. In most cases, looking at the disassembly is not something that should be required, as higher-level languages are designed to express a program in mor understandable terms. It's especially true these days, since compilers have become smarter and often implement optimizations, such that the disassembly might not represent everything written in the higher-level language, even though it will accomplish the goal.
I haven't written a Q-Basic program in a long time.
I just lurk in here to learn what the folks who know this stuff KNOW.
:) I haven't used a form of Basic in a long time either.. Many progrmaming tasks are probably a little too complicated for Basic.
Nightfox
paradigm used in software development these days, and the functional style of C (and in many examples of C code) seems to teach bad habits when moving to an object-oriented codebase or when object-orientation is desired on a project. Signs of this include many global variables, functions with many parameters, many structs that don't contain functions, variables scattered all over the place, etc..
Re: Anyone With A Tandy 1000h
By: John Guillory to Ed Vance on Wed Aug 08 2012 07:37:14
if your going to learn C, then .... "Learn C", rather than playing
around with a C derrivitive. In this age when you can obtain free C compilers and C++ compilers, there is no reason not to learn C or C++. Now I know
I'm somewhat of the mind that it's better to start out learning C++ rather than C. Object-oriented programming has become pretty much the standard paradigm used in software development these days, and the functional style of C (and in many examples of C code) seems to teach bad habits when moving to an object-oriented codebase or when object-orientation is desired on a project. Signs of this include many global variables, functions with many parameters, many structs that don't contain functions, variables scattered all over the place, etc..
I do think it's useful to learn the C standard library functions, since it contains many useful functions, but I think the object-oriented learning style gained from learning C++ is perhaps more important.
I'm somewhat of the mind that it's better to start out learning C++ rather than C. Object-oriented programming has become pretty much the standardThis state of mind is typical of a lot of people who never learned to
It really depends on what type of programming one is interested in. As a foundation, I think learning procedural (rather than object oriented) programming first is preferrable. In systems and embedded programming, objec
paradigm used in software development these days, and the functional style of C (and in many examples of C code) seems to teach bad habits when moving to an object-oriented codebase or when object-orientation is desired on a project. Signs of this include many global variables, functions with many parameters, many structs that don't contain functions, variables scattered all over the place, etc..
These are not good C programming practices either. Those are signs of a
bad programmer, not signs of a procedural style (functional style is something different again).
It really depends on what type of programming one is interested in. As a foundation, I think learning procedural (rather than object oriented) programming first is preferrable. In systems and embedded programming, object oriented methodologies are often (dare I say, usually?) not
preferred to procedural (e.g. plain ole C). The vast majority of the programming projects I've been involved with professionally over the past
20 years have been primarily C (with a sprinkling of C++ or assembler).
Most of the object-oriented (e.g. C++) projects I have been involved with were GUI applications programming (e.g. MFC and VCL). I'm not saying one is better than the other in a general sense, but for systems programming (e.g kernel and driver development), C is usually preferred over C++.
I'm somewhat of the mind that it's better to start out learning C++ rather than C. Object-oriented programming has become pretty much the standard
This state of mind is typical of a lot of people who never learned to
program in non object oriented programming. Most people with this mind
set can not program in a non-object oriented language.
Object Oriented
languages tend to be bloated with a lot of overhead that is not
necessary
for the actual program because of the objects. Not every situation
lends
its self to Object Oriented Programming, and not every situation is
recommended to be programmed in Object Oriented Programming. I've yet
to
see a microprocessor with 8k or so of RAM and 8k of EEPROM actually use
object oriented programming to develop programs for the processor. If
someone wants to program in C, and you try to force them to use C++ because
you prefer object oriented programming, that's not much different than
Michelle Obama forcing restauraunts to not sell french frys to children
because she'd rather eat fruit.
paradigm used in software development these days, and the functional style of C (and in many examples of C code) seems to teach bad habits when moving to an object-oriented codebase or when object-orientation desired on a project. Signs of this include many global variables, functions with many parameters, many structs that don't contain functions, variables scattered all over the place, etc..
These are not good C programming practices either. Those are signs of a bad programmer, not signs of a procedural style (functional style is something different again).
True. However, I tend to see those things more often in C code examples tha in examples of object-oriented code.
Nightfox
if you try go join a project where most of the developers are using object-oriented code and you try programming in a non-object-oriented
style, your code additions likely won't fit in as easily as the others, and the other developers will probably be very annoyed at you. :)
object-oriented code and you try programming in a non-object-oriented style, your code additions likely won't fit in as easily as the others, and the other developers will probably be very annoyed at you. :)
Of course the opposite is true too.
I can't imagine someone *only* understanding or mastering object-oriented methodologies being very successful in any programming project/team. But that's just my experienced opinion.
Ha.. yes I remember upgrading from I think a 4.77 mhz 8088 to an>I think that's what it's for.
8 Mhz 8086 or something and games that I'd been using would suddenly
run so fast they were unplayable. Little utilities came out to slow
down your computer so you could still use them.. Science takes a
giant step backwards.. B)
The 486DX33 box I have has a yellow TURBO button to do that.
My programming skills started with Commodore 64 CBM Basic, then to>GW-Basic and Q-Basic, I've looked at Visual Basic code but couldn't
I didn't even know about the internet until 1995.. And around that time, on>local BBS that was starting to integrate internet services, I heard from othe
Re: Anyone With A Tandy 1000h
By: Poindexter Fortran to Nightfox on Fri Aug 03 2012 10:44:02
was really left on and used to slow it down at times. I think the marketeers would have rather sold a TURBO button than a COMPATIBILITY button any day. :)I liked the extra light, especially when it was on the button itself.
Though, I'd allways find other uses for the button.... That, and when
bored, program the turbo light to go on and off, or use the turbo light
as a status for my program.... That's what we need next on cases....
Put about 10-12 LED lights labeled S1 - S12, and have the motherboard
designed to allow the user to turn them on and off via software....
Granted, it'd be super easy for Linux and DOS, a royal pain in Windows.
Have you watched the BBS documentary? Some of the older sysops lamented th
fact that someone could just install a BBS package and call themselves a s
without knowing assembler. :)
I haven't seen that yet but it doesn't surprise me. Everyone likes to RM>feel like an 'elitist' for a while.. I saw DOS get trashed in the early RM>days as being too user friendly for the same reason..
I still do some stuff in DOS and people who have taken up computers
in the past 20 years look at it like you're using a foreign language, RM>which in a way I guess you are.. just not as foreign as assembler.. B)
Yes, I have a giant server tower beside my desk here that started out RM>life as a 386DX 33 with 387 CoPro and it has a Turbo button on it that RM>dropped the speed by 50% I think it was.. I later upgraded the system RM>with a new motherboard & 486DX-100 which lost the turbo functionality.
When I got my 486 built in 1994 I thought the Turbo Button was to speed
it up, and I still did until today while reading about it here.
I checked and the Turbo LED lights up when I turn it on.
It sounds like something in that machine is set up backwards. PCs always ra at their highest speed by default, so the Turbo LED should be on by default, and first time you press the turbo button, the Turbo LED should turn off.
Jose! can you C?Not if you throw bleach in his eyes!
Re: Anyone With A Tandy 1000h
By: Ed Vance to NIGHTFOX on Mon Aug 06 2012 08:19:00
A Progidy CD that I have has a Windows 3.x program called C-- on it.If I'm not mistaken, c--'s biggest fault is that the limited function set
Have you heard of that one?
hinders it for any type of useful programs, causing a programmer to get JG>frustrated finding something to put their skills to use with. That, and if JG>your going to learn C, then .... "Learn C", rather than playing around with a
derrivitive. In this age when you can obtain free C compilers and C++ JG>compilers, there is no reason not to learn C or C++. Now I know there's JG>standard C, but despite how hard core you are, and what your goal is, you wil
rarely use 100% PURE ANSI STANDARD C. with that in mind, you will be forced JG>learn either Microsoft or Borland libraries. Once you do that, you'll find a
C and C++ compilers have libraries that are either compatible with Microsoft,
Borland, both, or a sub-set of one or more. I'd seriously look into Borland JG>C++ command line compiler if your wanting to start doing C++ on windows. For
Linux, use the GNU C++/gcc/etc. compilers.
GW-Basic and Q-Basic, I've looked at Visual Basic code but couldn'tYou should really try PowerBasic 10.0 and PowerBasic CC 6.0! Especially
get in the groove with it.
Power Basic 10, combined with the SQL library.
Re: Anyone With A Tandy 1000h
By: Ed Vance to NIGHTFOX on Mon Aug 06 2012 08:19:00
A Progidy CD that I have has a Windows 3.x program called C-- on it.
Have you heard of that one?
I have always been interested in the inner workings of programs so I tried out C-- to see if it would help me learn C. It didn't.
I haven't heard of C--. But from the name, it doesn't sound like it would be
good learning tool.. But I'm probably wrong. :)
I tried looking at a Disassembly of several C=64 games to try to see
what made them work but got in over my head. <GRIN>
It is difficult to get the idea of a program from reading assembly code. In NI>most cases, looking at the disassembly is not something that should be NI>required, as higher-level languages are designed to express a program in more
understandable terms. It's especially true these days, since compilers have NI>become smarter and often implement optimizations, such that the disassembly NI>might not represent everything written in the higher-level language, even NI>though it will accomplish the goal.
I haven't written a Q-Basic program in a long time.
I just lurk in here to learn what the folks who know this stuff KNOW.
:) I haven't used a form of Basic in a long time either.. Many progrmaming NI>tasks are probably a little too complicated for Basic.
Re: Programming
By: Nightfox to Ed Vance on Wed Aug 08 2012 07:19 pm
Re: Anyone With A Tandy 1000h
By: Ed Vance to NIGHTFOX on Mon Aug 06 2012 08:19:00
I tried looking at a Disassembly of several C=64 games to try to see what made them work but got in over my head. <GRIN>
It is difficult to get the idea of a program from reading assembly code. most cases, looking at the disassembly is not something that should be required, as higher-level languages are designed to express a program in m
understandable terms. It's especially true these days, since compilers ha
become smarter and often implement optimizations, such that the disassembl
might not represent everything written in the higher-level language, even though it will accomplish the goal.
I haven't written a Q-Basic program in a long time.
I just lurk in here to learn what the folks who know this stuff KNOW.
:) I haven't used a form of Basic in a long time either.. Many progrmami
tasks are probably a little too complicated for Basic.
Nightfox
you have to learn a nd b before you get to c.
you have to learn a nd b before you get to c.
And then there's D:
http://dlang.org/
My programming skills started with Commodore 64 CBM Basic, then to
GW-Basic and Q-Basic, I've looked at Visual Basic code but couldn't
get in the groove with it.
I followed much the same path although my first system was an Apple II RM>rather than the Commodore I almost bought instead, so my first Basic RM>language was Applesoft, then GW-Basic. Later I found a Basic compiler RM>called APBasic.. (Advance Point Basic I think ?) It used most of the RM>standard GW-Basic commands and added a few unique ones of its own and
you could create stand-alone executable files from it. For a time I sold RM>programming commercially that I created with it and I still use some of RM>those programs myself. It would be easier to make flashier looking RM>programs using some version of Visual Basic I suppose but I never did
get too far into that.. Old dog vs new tricks syndrome.. B)
it is called CMM and was part of a program called CEnvi that used .cmmThere was a time I'd do anything to get an OS/2 compiler. But now, I've got
files in the DOS, Windows 3.1 and OS/2 OS's.
I checked out the cost of Power Basic 10, I'm too cheap to pay anythingThe best I could recommend on that is to check their site out for specials
like that for software. but thanks for the recommendation.
Re: Anyone With A Tandy 1000h
By: Ed Vance to ROB MCCART on Sat Aug 11 2012 21:23:00
When I got my 486 built in 1994 I thought the Turbo Button was to speed it up, and I still did until today while reading about it here.
I checked and the Turbo LED lights up when I turn it on.
It sounds like something in that machine is set up backwards. PCs always ran
at their highest speed by default, so the Turbo LED should be on by default, NI>and first time you press the turbo button, the Turbo LED should turn off.
Where I worked the Main Office said for everyone to use Word Perfect>there.
I worked in a Field Office and used EDIT to type up some things for>work.
One day someone from the Main Office noticed the Blue Background on the>monitor as I was typing away and asked what I was using, and I said
I think WP was on that computer but I didn't see any sense in using it>when EDIT would do the job.
I still use EDIT at times on this XP box.
P.S. Thanks for some new to me Taglines.
* BASIC Programmers Never Die, They GOSUB and don't RETURN.
When I got my 486 built in 1994 I thought the Turbo Button was to speed>it up, and I still did until today while reading about it here.
I checked and the Turbo LED lights up when I turn it on.
Should I press the button to turn the LED off? Thanks!
>at their highest speed by default, so the Turbo LED should be on by default,I checked and the Turbo LED lights up when I turn it on.
It sounds like something in that machine is set up backwards. PCs always ran
Re: Anyone With A Tandy 1000h
By: Ed Vance to JOHN GUILLORY on Sun Aug 12 2012 17:14:00
The best I could recommend on that is to check their site out for specials
on "classic" Power Basic and upgrade like I did. I actually got in on Pow
money.... Nice thing about PB CC 5.0 is it was released after 8.0 and was
more around PB 9.0, which I upgraded to 5.5 when 9.0 came out. My PB CC
is more closer to 10.0 in features than the PB 8.0, so not as big of a nee
to upgrade to 6.0 on it. I will say it's nice in 10.0 to have the static
libraries, built in resource compiler into the source code! I mean, you u
#resource statements to keep all your version control, string resources,
etc. Its pretty nice to have. Multi-threading and the TIX
instruction are cool too... You can declare a double variable eg. TM, and th
use:
TIX TM
FunctionTest(1025) TO Result
PRINT Result
TIX END TM
Print "FunctionTest took " + Using$("#####.###",TM)
Also ordered a CGA->VGA adapter on eBay. That'll make life lots easier
to make this work.
I had a Tandy CM-5 monitor for mine until it sadly blew up one day (quite literally - there were sparks.) From that point forward, I just used its composite output and an old TV.
I had friends in 1983-1984 who enjoyed using their Apple ]['s and they>encouraged me to get one.
When I looked a ][ costed US$800 with a 80 Column Card.>modem and a floppy drive, because I didn't want to start out with the
I couldn't afford that so I got the C=64 in March 1984 with a 300 baud
One of my ][ friends told me he approved of my getting the 64 because it>was a nice box.
I, myself, prefer qedit for it's macro's. I can mark a column, delete,I still use EDIT at times on this XP box.
DOS based applications I use QEdit which offers a few more options than
EDIT did.. (QEdit Advanced v2.15 by Semware - 1991) In fact my SLMR Mail reader is set to use QEdit as the reply editor here..
> > In fact my SLMR Mail reader is set to use QEdit as the replyI use QEdit which offers a few more options than EDIR did..
I, myself, prefer qedit for it's macro's. I can mark a column, delete,> or if I have a comma delimited file, I can record me editing one line,
Nightfox wrote to Mro <=-
Re: BBS Doc
By: Mro to Nightfox on Thu Aug 02 2012 17:53:35
remember the documentary saying something about telnet BBSs though.
he said nothing about telnet bbses.
I guess I'll have to watch it again.. I thought I remembered a little blurb (as text on the screen), on one of the last episodes, about how there are still some BBSs running on the internet as telnet BBSs. I
guess I could be remembering it wrong though.
i think it's got old sysops to call bbses. i dont think users even know about it.
That could be true. I wonder how many former BBS users (non-sysops)
have seen it though. But people who never did use BBSs probably aren't searching for BBS information these days..
Nightfox wrote to Mro <=-
Re: BBS Doc
By: Mro to Nightfox on Thu Aug 02 2012 17:53:35
remember the documentary saying something about telnet BBSs though.
he said nothing about telnet bbses.
I guess I'll have to watch it again.. I thought I remembered a little blurb (as text on the screen), on one of the last episodes, about how there are still some BBSs running on the internet as telnet BBSs. I guess I could be remembering it wrong though.
He's got a section in the "No Carrier" episode about BBSes on the
Internet. His interviews include the Citadel guys, the telnet-able Commodore 64 BBS, and reference to a couple hundred active systems.
He also mentions the boom in the Russian Fidonet, but that might be in
the "Fidonet" episode.
i think it's got old sysops to call bbses. i dont think users even know about it.
That could be true. I wonder how many former BBS users (non-sysops) have seen it though. But people who never did use BBSs probably aren't searching for BBS information these days..
I was never a sysop, just a user circa 1992-1996. The documentary was pretty inspiring for me to keep chugging away on qodem. The years
from 2004-2007 I got a lot more into BBSes, particularly while playing
a few rounds of TradeWars. After 2008 I've been very much off-and-on
due to my job eating so much of my available time.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
He's got a section in the "No Carrier" episode about BBSes on the
Internet. His interviews include the Citadel guys, the telnet-able Commodore 64 BBS, and reference to a couple hundred active systems.
He also mentions the boom in the Russian Fidonet, but that might be in
the "Fidonet" episode.
I still use EDIT at times on this XP box.
Edit was pretty basic but I can see your point. I have 3 or 4 versions
of MS Office and none installed on my main computer. I (rarely) use RM>MSWorks 4 when I need something built into it. For semi-fancy stuff RM>there's a little free add-on front end called Jarte which uses the RM>Wordpad 'Engine' and works quite well. For quick edits in Windows I
use Win32Pad, a free Notepad replacement that supports fonts (one at a RM>time) and huge files but actually saves in plain text so it can be used RM>for any text document you'd normally use Notepad for. If I slip into
DOS based applications I use QEdit which offers a few more options than RM>EDIT did.. (QEdit Advanced v2.15 by Semware - 1991) In fact my SLMR Mail RM>reader is set to use QEdit as the reply editor here..
Windows Edit is likely limited to 64kb files as well.. I never checked. RM>Notepad is. QEdit is limited to about 200 kb files.
Win32Pad I have used for text files over 12 meg in size. It is limited RM>only by your system memory.
When I got my 486 built in 1994 I thought the Turbo Button was to speed
it up, and I still did until today while reading about it here.
I checked and the Turbo LED lights up when I turn it on.
Should I press the button to turn the LED off? Thanks!
It might depend on the system itself, how it identifies the setting
but I would expect that the light being on would mean the computer
is at full speed. It gets confusing because we did say that turbo
slows it down but it's more that the turbo *option* allowed you the
two speeds. Mine was quite clear because it stated the speed in
big LED numbers rather than turning a light on and off.
I still use EDIT at times on this XP box.
Edit was pretty basic but I can see your point. I have 3 or 4 versions RM>of MS Office and none installed on my main computer. I (rarely) use RM>MSWorks 4 when I need something built into it. For semi-fancy stuff RM>there's a little free add-on front end called Jarte which uses the RM>Wordpad 'Engine' and works quite well. For quick edits in Windows I RM>use Win32Pad, a free Notepad replacement that supports fonts (one at a RM>time) and huge files but actually saves in plain text so it can be used RM>for any text document you'd normally use Notepad for. If I slip into RM>DOS based applications I use QEdit which offers a few more options than RM>EDIT did.. (QEdit Advanced v2.15 by Semware - 1991) In fact my SLMR Mail RM>reader is set to use QEdit as the reply editor here..
Rob,
I have MS Office on the old 486 DOS/Win3.1 box and used it a bit.
I never touched the Office 'Trial' that was on this XP box when I got it
in 2006, but recently I have played some with MSWorks.
I opened the MSWorks Word Processor and saw version 8 in Help-About.
I don't often use Wordpad, it's mostly Notepad that gets used when I
want to C&P something as a URL in Firefox from a text file.
Copying things in EDIT won't Paste into Notepad or Firefox in XP.
I just tried opening EDIT and copying a line and then going to the
Desktop and couldn't Paste it in either Notepad or Firefox, but after I returned to the EDIT screen I could Paste the line just fine.
Windows Edit is likely limited to 64kb files as well.. I never checked. RM>Notepad is. QEdit is limited to about 200 kb files.
Win32Pad I have used for text files over 12 meg in size. It is limited RM>only by your system memory.
Thanks for the maximun file size specs, I never knew that.
I have tried to open some files in EDIT and it caused EDIT to BURP!
because the file was too big.
EDIT handles ANSI and High ASCII characters OK but Notepad and Wordpad don't.
In Notepad I use the Courier New font because I've heard it is a
Fixed-Width font, so I thought it wouldn't have any trouble displaying
ANSI or High ASCII so I Opened SLMR's TAGLINES.MR file and found out I
was wrong.
* SLMR 2.1a #T348 * Only God is in a position to look down on anyone.
I still use EDIT at times on this XP box.
Edit was pretty basic but I can see your point. I have 3 or 4 versions RM>of MS Office and none installed on my main computer. I (rarely) use RM>MSWorks 4 when I need something built into it. For semi-fancy stuff RM>there's a little free add-on front end called Jarte which uses the RM>Wordpad 'Engine' and works quite well. For quick edits in Windows I RM>use Win32Pad, a free Notepad replacement that supports fonts (one at a RM>time) and huge files but actually saves in plain text so it can be used RM>for any text document you'd normally use Notepad for. If I slip into RM>DOS based applications I use QEdit which offers a few more options than RM>EDIT did.. (QEdit Advanced v2.15 by Semware - 1991) In fact my SLMR Mail RM>reader is set to use QEdit as the reply editor here..
Rob,
I have MS Office on the old 486 DOS/Win3.1 box and used it a bit.
I never touched the Office 'Trial' that was on this XP box when I got it
in 2006, but recently I have played some with MSWorks.
I opened the MSWorks Word Processor and saw version 8 in Help-About.
I don't often use Wordpad, it's mostly Notepad that gets used when I
want to C&P something as a URL in Firefox from a text file.
Copying things in EDIT won't Paste into Notepad or Firefox in XP.
I just tried opening EDIT and copying a line and then going to the
Desktop and couldn't Paste it in either Notepad or Firefox, but after I returned to the EDIT screen I could Paste the line just fine.
Windows Edit is likely limited to 64kb files as well.. I never checked. RM>Notepad is. QEdit is limited to about 200 kb files.
Win32Pad I have used for text files over 12 meg in size. It is limited RM>only by your system memory.
Thanks for the maximun file size specs, I never knew that.
I have tried to open some files in EDIT and it caused EDIT to BURP!
because the file was too big.
EDIT handles ANSI and High ASCII characters OK but Notepad and Wordpad don't.
In Notepad I use the Courier New font because I've heard it is a
Fixed-Width font, so I thought it wouldn't have any trouble displaying
ANSI or High ASCII so I Opened SLMR's TAGLINES.MR file and found out I
was wrong.
* SLMR 2.1a #T348 * Only God is in a position to look down on anyone.
In Notepad I use the Courier New font because I've heard it is a
Fixed-Width font, so I thought it wouldn't have any trouble displaying
ANSI or High ASCII so I Opened SLMR's TAGLINES.MR file and found out I
was wrong.
I had friends in 1983-1984 who enjoyed using their Apple ]['s and they
encouraged me to get one.
When I looked a ][ costed US$800 with a 80 Column Card.
I couldn't afford that so I got the C=64 in March 1984 with a 300 baud
modem and a floppy drive, because I didn't want to start out with the
cassette drive.
One of my ][ friends told me he approved of my getting the 64 because it
was a nice box.
I was all set to buy a Commodore back in 1982 or 83 when I ran into
an old friend I knew in school and hadn't seen in about 5 years.
He was heavily into computers, building his own and such, and he got
me into that. I said I had an Apple ][+ but what I really had was a
clone of one. In the also cloned Apple ][ type case I had something
that looked 'genuine' and was actually better built, gold plated chips RM>and military grade eProms, and I set it up with two external floppy RM>drives. Basic Commodore 64 at that time was about $1000 and a real
Apple ][ about $1500. I built mine for $550 and later bought the
floppy drives for about $250 each instead of about $400 from Commodore.
I made a point of not getting the floppy drives until I'd learned to RM>write my own programs because I didn't want to get buried in playing RM>games and lose track of it. Funny, I remembered, even though I was a
wiz at it, thinking in school how useless algebra/calculus was but,
at one point, when I was writing some financial programs I looked at
a line I'd just completed and realised I was using 7 variables and
13 levels of parentheses and I thought, maybe it wasn't such a waste.. B)
Re: Anyone With A Tandy 1000h
By: Ed Vance to ROB MCCART on Sun Aug 19 2012 10:45 pm
have you tried dosshell from msdos 7.1?
Re: Anyone With A Tandy 1000h
By: Ed Vance to ROB MCCART on Sun Aug 19 2012 10:45 pm
In Notepad I use the Courier New font because I've heard it is a Fixed-Width font, so I thought it wouldn't have any trouble displaying ANSI or High ASCII so I Opened SLMR's TAGLINES.MR file and found out I was wrong.
Try Lucida Sans Unicode.
Re: Anyone With A Tandy 1000h
By: Ed Vance to ROB MCCART on Sun Aug 19 2012 10:45 pm
have you tried dosshell from msdos 7.1?
Corey,
I have PC-DOS 7.0 on my 486 box and just typed DOSSHELL on it and the Microsoft DosShell program Opened and started reading the C: drive.
I can't remember if Windows 95 or 98 included DOSSHELL in them, too long ago.
This XP box can't run DOSSHELL, I just tried and XP doesn't even know
about it.
* SLMR 2.1a #T348 * Don't open the darkroom door; it lets all the dark out.
Re: Anyone With A Tandy 1000h
By: Ed Vance to COREY on Fri Aug 24 2012 10:12 am
Re: Anyone With A Tandy 1000h
By: Ed Vance to ROB MCCART on Sun Aug 19 2012 10:45 pm
have you tried dosshell from msdos 7.1?
Corey,
I have PC-DOS 7.0 on my 486 box and just typed DOSSHELL on it and the Microsoft DosShell program Opened and started reading the C: drive.
I can't remember if Windows 95 or 98 included DOSSHELL in them, too long ago.
This XP box can't run DOSSHELL, I just tried and XP doesn't even know about it.
* SLMR 2.1a #T348 * Don't open the darkroom door; it lets all the dark ou
dosshell from msdos 7.1 works on my xp sp3
Sysop: | Eric Oulashin |
---|---|
Location: | Beaverton, Oregon, USA |
Users: | 89 |
Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
Uptime: | 02:35:23 |
Calls: | 5,076 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 8,491 |
Messages: | 351,651 |