Amiga BASIC written by Microsoft?? - Page 2

Rick Dangerous · 13 June 2006, 00:18

Well,
articles written back in the stoneage of homecomputing are very interesting.
I've an article in a german computermagazine from 1986 where two people discuss the pros and cons of THE MOUSE.
Actually afaik there were only the Macintosh, A1000 and AtariST on the normal-user-market that were sold together with a mouse.
In the PC world the mouse became famous from 1989 on, as far as I know.
In the MS-IBM-INTEL-conspiracy there was no mouse.
A friend of mine in 1985 had access to a comlete Compaq-PC owned by his rich father. It was a 8086 or 286 based one but it was VERY expensive at that time and had no mouse. This complete Compaq-PC topped the price for a similiar equipped A1000 more than 5 times, I remember.

Cheers,
Rick

fisken uno · 13 June 2006, 00:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Dangerous

Well,
articles written back in the stoneage of homecomputing are very interesting.
I've an article in a german computermagazine from 1986 where two people discuss the pros and cons of THE MOUSE.
Actually afaik there were only the Macintosh, A1000 and AtariST on the normal-user-market that were sold together with a mouse.
In the PC world the mouse became famous from 1989 on, as far as I know.
In the MS-IBM-INTEL-conspiracy there was no mouse.
A friend of mine in 1985 had access to a comlete Compaq-PC owned by his rich father. It was a 8086 or 286 based one but it was VERY expensive at that time and had no mouse. This complete Compaq-PC topped the price for a similiar equipped A1000 more than 5 times, I remember.

Cheers,
Rick

I used to own a Toshiba 8086 laptop PC. It had two internal disk drives but NO HD and 640 KB RAM (Ooooh!). My father gave it to me and I don't want to know how much it costed when he bought it... Yikes, it was a lot. It didn't have a mouse but I eventually managed to get a mouse to work in Zak McKracken, connected to the COM port. It also had CGA graphics, a real bloody pain to watch... Not to mention the internal PC speaker. *shudders*

Ok, so that wasn't very much on topic.

Dizzy · 13 June 2006, 01:12

This book is

But Amiga also produce software for M$ http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/f...8pocketpc.mspx

Ray Norrish · 13 June 2006, 01:31

Well, I mean.. who actually used the basic that came with it that much.. the thing was crying out from the start to be used properly (assembly) cos there was so much around already, where people dove straight into asm.

Fine that it gives some easy access to programming for the home market, but surely most programmers wanted to get straight into the guts (I know I did!)

Maybe I was a bit harsh on the shipped basic.. I mean, you could have got going with 10: print "I am ace" 20 goto 10 and you would have been an amiga coder right there!

snyp · 13 June 2006, 02:43

amiga-basic being important enough to merit an entire topic on a forum thread on the internet is amazing to me, personally.

manicx · 13 June 2006, 08:53

This proves how great company Microsoft is

<Tries to hide from the flying joysticks!>

Galaxy · 13 June 2006, 09:16

AmigaBASIC was absolutely hopeless - really slow and quite quirky. I remember seeing programs that would occasionaly do weird things due to bugs in the interpreter - eg. exhibit different behaviour when run.

There are many superior implementations of BASIC on the Amiga - it's a good thing that C= had the sense to ditch it for WB2.

Dizzy · 13 June 2006, 23:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by manicx

This proves how great company Microsoft is

<Tries to hide from the flying joysticks!>

no flying joystick, just a visit from Fred

you will not be able to sit for the next 3 weeks

Chuckles · 14 June 2006, 07:53

Just to add one more for the record ... Applesoft Basic for the Apple II was also a Microsoft implementation of Basic, with a few additions from Apple. Contrary to what someone suggested, Basic wasn't something that Microsoft came up with ... it had been around before Microsoft existed. They were the first company that I'm aware of though that implemented a Basic interpreter specifically for microcomputers though, so it shouldn't be too surprising that most of the hardware manufacturers at the time licensed implementations from them, rather than having to start from scratch. None of those implementations was all that great, but they were adequate for an awful lot of beginning programmers to start out with.

DrBong · 14 June 2006, 17:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galaxy

There are many superior implementations of BASIC on the Amiga - it's a good thing that C= had the sense to ditch it for WB2.

Funnily enough C= ditched ABasiC (written by MetaComCo in the UK, who also wrote AmigaDOS and, curiosuly, basic for the Sinclair QL) in favour of Microsoft's AmigaBasic when they released WB 1.1. ABasiC was the first basic included with WB 1.0 when the A1000 was originally released in 1985. Quite a lot of early PD stuff (especially in the Fred Fish collection) was written using ABasiC and someone even released a patch for it to work under KS 2.0+. Can't really say that AmigaBasic enjoyed as much enthusiasm. Why Microsoft got the nod ahead of MetaComCo for WB 1.1, I'm not quite sure. If I know C=, it was probably to do with money and licensing agreements. Anyone know for sure?

Chuckles · 14 June 2006, 18:52

This may or may not be particularly accurate, but I seem to recall hearing once that ABasic was shipped with the early A1000's mostly because AmigaBasic couldn't be gotten ready to ship early enough for C='s liking, given that they didn't want to delay the launch and give Atari's ST an edge. Supposedly MetaComCo was able to provide ABasic a lot sooner, though it wouldn't fully take advantage of the Amiga's features (as if AmigaBasic did a whole lot better). As for dropping AmigaBasic when WB2 came out, I suspect that was mainly done simply because it didn't work with KS2, and C= didn't want to have to pay Microsoft to fix the problem. They may also have simply wanted to avoid having to continue paying to license AmigaBasic, particularly since it wasn't drawing great reviews in the community anyway.

HCF · 15 June 2006, 05:53

Compared to ABasic, AmigaBASIC was far superior. It was not perfect but never intended to and free. BASIC is not intended as a development platform but rather to introduce programming concepts.

Chuckles · 15 June 2006, 07:52

Quite true. BASIC was actually the first programming language I learned way back in 1972 (which easily explains why I'm certain it wasn't a Microsoft invention). The name of the language itself is an acronym which stands for (in case anyone out there wasn't already aware of it) Beginners All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code. The language was designed as a tool for teaching the fundamental concepts of computer programming, and was never intended for "industrial use". At the time it was developed, the vast majority of serious programming was done either in assembler, COBOL or Fortran with the target platform being a machine costing vastly more than any first or second generation personal computer ever has, yet boasting considerably less horsepower than the most ordinary PC sold today. Personally, I still feel that BASIC could be used as an excellent language for teaching the fundamentals of computer logic, though I would tend to favor the use of any of the older variants of BASIC (such as Applesoft, for example) for that purpose. For a beginner, Applesoft would be easier to grasp initially since there would be no mouse or window events, etc. to deal with. Once the general concepts were well understood, the event-driven model of a BASIC such as AmigaBasic would be more easily absorbed. Once a beginner has come to understand all of that, learning to recognize how those same concepts are handled in other languages becomes pretty simple.

redblade · 15 June 2006, 10:39

I liked Microsoft Basic because of that 'Music' example.

I also had a compute disk which had some nice BASIC games, one of those was where you used the mouse to control the speed of a motor biker who went down some pipes then had to drive fast over the ramp to jump some cars.

Yeah that game was cool, was it called Biker Dave?

DDNI · 15 June 2006, 11:07

Yup you are right it was Biker Dave.

Look here http://www.atarimagazines.com/comput...Biker_Dave.php

BippyM · 15 June 2006, 14:03

I remember all the game patches/trainer listings that used to feature in Zero

Dexther · 15 June 2006, 17:13

HEY!!! FOLK'S
BASIC IS A MICROSOFT CREATION !!
we forget ?

Chuckles · 15 June 2006, 19:14

No, it is not. BASIC was around before Microsoft was. AmigaBasic is just one of many Microsoft implementations of BASIC for various platforms.

amiga · 15 June 2006, 19:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckles

...Personally, I still feel that BASIC could be used as an excellent language for teaching the fundamentals of computer logic,....

PASCAL is excellent for teaching purposes, NOT Basic.
As a matter of fact, I prefer PASCAL to C++ (the "C" stands for crap, I'm sure)!

Chuckles · 15 June 2006, 20:40

Pascal has going for it the fact that one of the primary goals the language was intended for was teaching people to program, that's true. The language was also intentionally designed to teach "good" structured programming practices while discouraging "bad" ones, such as the use of the "go to". Having worked with a few complete novices to programming in the past, I've found that for some of those, the added complication of learning structured programming slowed the rate at which they learned to program at all. For that reason, I still think BASIC is a pretty decent language to use to teach the absolute fundamentals of logic. Once a beginner learns the basics of programming logic, then you can always teach them why some ways of coding are much better than others, and what advantages other languages offer. Personally, I've never been all that impressed by Pascal, but that's just me. C++ is more to my liking, though I've used it only sparingly. To each their own, of course.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Manuals for GFA Basic and Hi-Soft Basic 2	ricky500	request.Apps	20	12 February 2013 21:06
Sites with programs written in BASIC	Leandro Jardim	Retrogaming General Discussion	35	01 January 2013 04:14
Microsoft pays $6.1M for opensource Amiga program	alexh	Amiga scene	2	20 June 2006 16:34
Now have a look at this. It is a Microsoft book about the Amiga. Seeing is believing.	Tolismlf	Nostalgia & memories	13	25 November 2004 12:42
A new Amiga Book from Microsoft Press	Pyromania	Amiga scene	8	18 May 2003 18:34

13 June 2006, 00:18	#21
Rick Dangerous Registered Playmate Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: OZ Age: 54 Posts: 156	Well, articles written back in the stoneage of homecomputing are very interesting. I've an article in a german computermagazine from 1986 where two people discuss the pros and cons of THE MOUSE. Actually afaik there were only the Macintosh, A1000 and AtariST on the normal-user-market that were sold together with a mouse. In the PC world the mouse became famous from 1989 on, as far as I know. In the MS-IBM-INTEL-conspiracy there was no mouse. A friend of mine in 1985 had access to a comlete Compaq-PC owned by his rich father. It was a 8086 or 286 based one but it was VERY expensive at that time and had no mouse. This complete Compaq-PC topped the price for a similiar equipped A1000 more than 5 times, I remember. Cheers, Rick

13 June 2006, 01:12	#23
Dizzy Pirate Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Denmark Posts: 3,395	This book is But Amiga also produce software for M$ http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/f...8pocketpc.mspx

13 June 2006, 01:31	#24
Ray Norrish Registered User Join Date: May 2005 Location: Cheshire, UK Age: 56 Posts: 322	Well, I mean.. who actually used the basic that came with it that much.. the thing was crying out from the start to be used properly (assembly) cos there was so much around already, where people dove straight into asm. Fine that it gives some easy access to programming for the home market, but surely most programmers wanted to get straight into the guts (I know I did!) Maybe I was a bit harsh on the shipped basic.. I mean, you could have got going with 10: print "I am ace" 20 goto 10 and you would have been an amiga coder right there!

13 June 2006, 02:43	#25
snyp 'Difficult'. Join Date: May 2006 Location: No fixed abode Age: 45 Posts: 105	amiga-basic being important enough to merit an entire topic on a forum thread on the internet is amazing to me, personally.

13 June 2006, 08:53	#26
manicx Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Athens, Greece Posts: 991	This proves how great company Microsoft is <Tries to hide from the flying joysticks!>

13 June 2006, 09:16	#27
Galaxy Registered User Join Date: May 2004 Location: Canberra, Australia Age: 46 Posts: 1,417	AmigaBASIC was absolutely hopeless - really slow and quite quirky. I remember seeing programs that would occasionaly do weird things due to bugs in the interpreter - eg. exhibit different behaviour when run. There are many superior implementations of BASIC on the Amiga - it's a good thing that C= had the sense to ditch it for WB2.

14 June 2006, 07:53	#29
Chuckles The Ancient One Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Kansas City/USA Age: 68 Posts: 685	Just to add one more for the record ... Applesoft Basic for the Apple II was also a Microsoft implementation of Basic, with a few additions from Apple. Contrary to what someone suggested, Basic wasn't something that Microsoft came up with ... it had been around before Microsoft existed. They were the first company that I'm aware of though that implemented a Basic interpreter specifically for microcomputers though, so it shouldn't be too surprising that most of the hardware manufacturers at the time licensed implementations from them, rather than having to start from scratch. None of those implementations was all that great, but they were adequate for an awful lot of beginning programmers to start out with.

14 June 2006, 18:52	#31
Chuckles The Ancient One Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Kansas City/USA Age: 68 Posts: 685	This may or may not be particularly accurate, but I seem to recall hearing once that ABasic was shipped with the early A1000's mostly because AmigaBasic couldn't be gotten ready to ship early enough for C='s liking, given that they didn't want to delay the launch and give Atari's ST an edge. Supposedly MetaComCo was able to provide ABasic a lot sooner, though it wouldn't fully take advantage of the Amiga's features (as if AmigaBasic did a whole lot better). As for dropping AmigaBasic when WB2 came out, I suspect that was mainly done simply because it didn't work with KS2, and C= didn't want to have to pay Microsoft to fix the problem. They may also have simply wanted to avoid having to continue paying to license AmigaBasic, particularly since it wasn't drawing great reviews in the community anyway.

15 June 2006, 05:53	#32
HCF Zone Friend Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: here Age: 54 Posts: 97	Compared to ABasic, AmigaBASIC was far superior. It was not perfect but never intended to and free. BASIC is not intended as a development platform but rather to introduce programming concepts.

15 June 2006, 07:52	#33
Chuckles The Ancient One Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Kansas City/USA Age: 68 Posts: 685	Quite true. BASIC was actually the first programming language I learned way back in 1972 (which easily explains why I'm certain it wasn't a Microsoft invention). The name of the language itself is an acronym which stands for (in case anyone out there wasn't already aware of it) Beginners All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code. The language was designed as a tool for teaching the fundamental concepts of computer programming, and was never intended for "industrial use". At the time it was developed, the vast majority of serious programming was done either in assembler, COBOL or Fortran with the target platform being a machine costing vastly more than any first or second generation personal computer ever has, yet boasting considerably less horsepower than the most ordinary PC sold today. Personally, I still feel that BASIC could be used as an excellent language for teaching the fundamentals of computer logic, though I would tend to favor the use of any of the older variants of BASIC (such as Applesoft, for example) for that purpose. For a beginner, Applesoft would be easier to grasp initially since there would be no mouse or window events, etc. to deal with. Once the general concepts were well understood, the event-driven model of a BASIC such as AmigaBasic would be more easily absorbed. Once a beginner has come to understand all of that, learning to recognize how those same concepts are handled in other languages becomes pretty simple.

15 June 2006, 10:39	#34
redblade Zone Friend Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Middle Earth Age: 40 Posts: 2,127	I liked Microsoft Basic because of that 'Music' example. I also had a compute disk which had some nice BASIC games, one of those was where you used the mouse to control the speed of a motor biker who went down some pipes then had to drive fast over the ramp to jump some cars. Yeah that game was cool, was it called Biker Dave?

15 June 2006, 11:07	#35
DDNI Targ Explorer Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Northern Ireland Posts: 5,431	Yup you are right it was Biker Dave. Look here http://www.atarimagazines.com/comput...Biker_Dave.php

15 June 2006, 14:03	#36
BippyM Global Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Derby, UK Age: 48 Posts: 9,355	I remember all the game patches/trainer listings that used to feature in Zero

15 June 2006, 17:13	#37
Dexther Registered User Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: italy Age: 46 Posts: 148	HEY!!! FOLK'S BASIC IS A MICROSOFT CREATION !! we forget ?

15 June 2006, 19:14	#38
Chuckles The Ancient One Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Kansas City/USA Age: 68 Posts: 685	No, it is not. BASIC was around before Microsoft was. AmigaBasic is just one of many Microsoft implementations of BASIC for various platforms.

15 June 2006, 20:40	#40
Chuckles The Ancient One Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Kansas City/USA Age: 68 Posts: 685	Pascal has going for it the fact that one of the primary goals the language was intended for was teaching people to program, that's true. The language was also intentionally designed to teach "good" structured programming practices while discouraging "bad" ones, such as the use of the "go to". Having worked with a few complete novices to programming in the past, I've found that for some of those, the added complication of learning structured programming slowed the rate at which they learned to program at all. For that reason, I still think BASIC is a pretty decent language to use to teach the absolute fundamentals of logic. Once a beginner learns the basics of programming logic, then you can always teach them why some ways of coding are much better than others, and what advantages other languages offer. Personally, I've never been all that impressed by Pascal, but that's just me. C++ is more to my liking, though I've used it only sparingly. To each their own, of course.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)