Qb for windows ... microsoft was too dumb to make it

[na_th_an]

1.- To create console applications, you can use easy API calls to initialize, to write to and to read from the console:

http://nirsoft.multiservers.com/vb/console.html

2.- To go fullscreen you use DirectX. Which is just like a big multi-purpose library.

http://www.rookscape.com/vbgaming/tutorials.php

The bad news is that the DirectX SDK only contains header files & stuff for VB5 and VB6 (and VB.NET), and I'm not quite sure about how you can use DrectX in VB4.

[VonGodric]

tnx

[dilettante]

It's sort of funny to see this hashed and rehashed over the years.

There is no question that VB is the QB/PDS successor. Na_th_an has made the point quite eloquently and completely in this thread.

This is made clearest by the fact that VB for DOS was built as the final product in the QB family. In most regards it is a superset of late PDS, and the most obvious new paradigm it offered was the "form" concept that is the foundation of most user-interactive VB programs. Forms are meant to give operational consistancy among programs and provide programmer productivity.

Yet VB forms are not required in either VBDOS or VBWin programs.

Funky graphic techniques seem to be the biggest disappointment QBers see in VBWin. Again as already presented, the screen is highly virtualized in Windows and almost has to be to provide for proper video management in a system running multiple user-interactive programs.

This almost needs to go on a FAQ list someplace, it comes up so often.

But I am amazed at the resistance to it. Can somebody explain that? Why is it that every time somebody points to VB as QB's successor people act like you ran over their cat?

[VonGodric]

Hello again,
I got a chance to try Visual Basic.NET
Btw I can answer your question too dilettante (though I know that VB is successor to qb/pds/vbdos) Because it isn't QBasic, it isn't by no means as easy and fun as QBasic is. Well that's my point of view anyway.

About VB.NET. It is NOT a "B A S I C" anymore. Jesus it's soo complicated. M$ thinks that everyones are Pro's who are using it. At least it seems to me so. It takes far tooo much hdd(~1GB), is sloow as hell on my PC(AMD Athlon XP 2500+) Anyway I don't like VB.NET

And Na_th_an, VB.Net supports console apps. It's the only good thing about it. The main thing what made QBasic qbasic was it's interactive interpreter, in VB.NET you need to first compile your program, it's program structure comes to be like a C, only with different keywords and a bit different formatting. Error message are no longer as userfriendly as was before and are more C-like.

For examle, instead of C's Main function now we have: Sub Main()
Well I don't like it. I want new version of QBasic for DOS, what would be able to work like let's say DJGPP, That would be cool. Produce 32bit code and give acces to all memory. heh, wanting too much...

[dilettante]

Well, we had Sub Main() in VB too.

But I concede the point regarding VB.Net entirely. While I can understand people not being comfortable moving from QB, et al. to VB for Windows, almost all of the "complexities" introduced are due to Windows being a much more complex environment to program in than DOS.

VB.Net was a complete break with the QB legacy though.

I am convinced it was built by C++ types. They hate Basic and had built their C#, then were told "ok, stick a false face on it to make it VB-like." So they started slopping around with syntax a bit, threw in some extra libraries to do VB-like things, and there you have it. A bastard child.

I too wish that we'd gotten a VB7 that addressed some of the things missing in VB6. The .Net train came along and derailed that from ever happening though.

[na_th_an]

Thx, dilettante.

Vongodric: VB is not as easy as QB just for 1 reason: Windows is not as simple as MSDOS.

If you want a lil' interpreter or compiler to play with, you can still use QB. It works great in the DOSVM and if it doesn't, you can always use an emulator. If you want to go more serious, try VB.

Note that if you want professional features (access to 32 bit APIs and other stuff, like VB provides), you have to give up some ease of use.

VB is not hard at all. Take appart the .NET version (which I've yet to try in depth, but what I saw I liked it, maybe I get deillusioned soon ), VB is an easy to learn and flexible language, which is moderately fast.

I'll try to code a shitty game in a blast in VB so you can see it's the same thing that coding it in QB. Just gimme some time

[relsoft]

The only problem I see with all windows progs is the fact that it's a call-based system so you'd have to remember constants, names, etc(take apart "visual" compilers). But once you get it to work, you can resuse it as much as you want. Just cut and paste.

[moochthemonkey]

Isn't Powerbasic supposed to be Qbasic for Windows? Or even Liberty Basic?

Does anyone no where I can find an EXACT windows compiler for QB? Without all that OPEN_CONSOLE and API stuff? Or do you need windows specific commands?

and if microsoft bought DOS, who invented it?

[adosorken]

Isn't Powerbasic supposed to be Qbasic for Windows? Or even Liberty Basic?

Power BASIC isn't QB by any stretch of the imagination. It's true that it is 95% compatible, it's that last 5% which kills any chance of immediate portability. Besides, PBCC is only a console compiler, and you need additional wrappers or modules to get any kind of graphics out of it.

Does anyone no where I can find an EXACT windows compiler for QB? Without all that OPEN_CONSOLE and API stuff? Or do you need windows specific commands?

Until OBDS is finished, there is no exact Windows compiler for QB. And even then, you're gonna have to give up all your libraries except QB.QLB because they won't work anymore unless you use an optional command wrapper.

and if microsoft bought DOS, who invented it?

IBM did.

[Z!re]

Uhm, wasnt DOS bought (read: Stolen) by MS from some developer, then sold to IBM for a lot more?