Talk:GW-BASIC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Software  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
 

Contents

[edit] Untitled first comments

I moved this page from to 'Microsoft GW-BASIC intrerpreter' from 'GW-BASIC programming language'. My rationale for this is on the talkpage for Microsoft BASICA interpreter. Please note that I have done the same for Microsoft QuickBASIC compiler. cprompt

Perhaps someone should merge 'Microsoft GW-BASIC interpreter' with 'Microsoft BASICA interpreter'. There is different information in both articles, but a lot of it can be described in common. I could imagine it starting off with something like "GW-BASIC and BASICA were both BASIC interpreters developed by Microsoft..." I might end up doing it myself, but I welcome anyone else interested in this article to do so. ---cprompt

Whew.. BASIC. Old School. - PY


Are we sure that GW stands for "gee-whiz", or is that a joke? I was sure that it was Graphics Workstation. CGS 10:50, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC).

It is generally understood to stand for "gee-whiz" among the old-timers in the computer industry (i.e., me - alas for my grey hair). It might be an urban legend, of course, but that is certainly what I have always understod it to mean. GW BASIC realy was gee-whiz! Indeed, it is particularly memorable as it's the last time I am aware of that Microsoft ever had an unchallenged best-of-breed product that re-wrote the rules about what good software meant. Since then, of course, they have had many products, but none that were so damn .. er ... so damn "gee-whiz, look at this!" Tannin 11:57, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I once read that GW stands for "Graphics Window" (Window not as in "Microsoft Windows" of course but perhaps as in the GW-BASIC "window"-command). It's true that GW-BASIC had a fair amount of graphic commands (for its time of course), so who knows? HK

I can attest, too, that it was "Gee Whiz", and if not mistaken, that *might* be in an old old copy of PC-Magazine. I know that I read it somewhere, a book? Magazine? Yes, even though it's been a long time, I still have a working copy of the program on my machine here. The rationale behind "Gee Whiz" was not that the product had any significance, but that it was a sarcastic remark about the type of product the MS programmers were saddled with. If I recall correctly, the article was an interview with one of the programmers. Metrax 06:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The notion that GW stands for 'graphical workstation', is that it was BASIC for computers that replaced ROM-BASIC addresses for graphical memory. Since magazines like PC-Mag and many early computer magazines often had basic code, this allowed people with graphical workstations, (instead of text-mode machines) to still do these basic tricks.
On very small machines, like the Tandy 100 (a laptop with 8*40 character-mode display, ROM-Basic was the built-in OS, along with an Editor. The whole kit had 24 kByte memory (basically shared between system ROM, ram, and storage), [for $1000, you could buy another 8K. I did not upgrade]. It was basically a kind of interface like GW-BASIC, with a file-selection one might see in U-BASIC. (This has a similar interface). The file system supports 32 files, but you could store things on CAS: or even, (by adding a COM file (by typing in the hex code directly), an external floppy disk on COM1. --Wendy.krieger 09:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New link

What is the justification for keeping a link to this site? As far as I can gather, it only has a few business programs, and not much else. The first site has downloads of GW-BASIC, and the second site contains the thoughts of one of the most experienced GW-BASIC programmers I know of - so why have a link to the other site? Graham/pianoman87 talk 07:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey! what happened to the Scottserver link? 76.232.52.111 18:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea - it seems to be a dead link. A pity - it was a great site. Graham87 15:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last version?

What was the last version of GW-BASIC? A web search seems to suggest 3.23.--JeffryJohnston 20:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 3.23 was the last version released. The external links in the article support that as well. The next basic interpreter that microsoft released was QBasic. Graham/pianoman87 talk 13:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Equating GW-Basic as a kind of ROM-BASIC standalone (which exists under the name basica.com or basica.exe (compaq), we can see the last version was 3.40, supplied with PC/DOS 5.02.--Wendy.krieger (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tokenized format

I've once seen a webpage extensively documenting the tokenized format. We could use that as a ref... if I can find it again. Shinobu (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I know of the Basic Language User Essay by Tom McIntire. It is a book describing tips and tricks for GW-BASIC, and includes a chapter on the tokenized format (chapter 2, as I've just checked). The HTML version doesn't seem to be available anymore, but here is the author's webpage from the Wayback Machine, containing a link to get the file as a self-extracting zip file containing a Microsoft Word document. I didn't realise the Wayback Machine stored program files. I don't feel comfortable citing a program file as a source - maybe if I put the original HTML or something up on another site? Graham87 11:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NOISE command

Can anyone point to reference material about the mentioned 'NOISE' command in GW-Basic ? Can't seem to find anything notable about it, and I myself was never aware (or made aware) of this command. 69.60.122.94 (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 0A and 0D for LINE INPUT

One drawback to using GWBasic now is that the LINE INPUT command expects a carriage return at the end of the line. Modern text files just have line feeds, not carriage returns, so GWBasic grabs the next 255 characters of the file and ignores the line feed. But it will operate as normal if, with a hex editor, you replace one with the other in the text file. I wonder if it would be possible to change the value at the right place in the GWBasic interpreter so that it expects a line feed rather than a carriage return and thus works normally? I have seen somewhere on the internet someone who has modified and made several changes to the interpreter using a hex editor. 78.146.77.179 (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

LF (^J) is the end-of-line character on Unix, CR (^M) is the end-of-line character on Macintosh, and CR-LF (^M^J) is the end-of-line character in DOS (and by extension, Windows). If you're running GWBasic on a Unix machine, then you will probably have to convert your files from ^J-terminated lines to ^M^J-terminated lines (or perhaps just ^M if it ignores the ^J). --ΨΦorg (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export