🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ted.716017534@lonestar> ted@rice.edu (Ted Carver.) writes:
>Well, I upgraded to Basic PDS 7.1 about 4 months ago.  I haven't
>used the product that much, but it seems to me that it doesn't
>give a lot of bang for the buck unless you've never used windows
>before and have no experience with structured programs.  Microsoft 
>appears to be using the same old ploy of putting out as many products 
>as possible (cf. OS/2 vs. Windows).  The features in v. 7.1 were too 
>little too late.  

Would you please clarify what you are saying. Basic PDS 7.1, which has
been out for more than two years, is not designed for Windows programming.
It is strictly a DOS-based development system. As for "bang for the buck"
I think QuickBASIC 4.5 user's would argue that Basic PDS 7.1 adds quite
a bit of "bang for the buck." And I am also curious about what you mean
about too little too late. As I said, it's been out for over two years. 

  
>   This stuff in the VB press release about aiding developers who want 
>to make the DOS/Windows transition is a bunch of you-know-what.  
>I fully expect that VB for DOS will be crippled somehow to avoid 
>competition with VB for Windows.  I guess I'll just switch over to 
>something else.

I don't know what you're reading into our press release.  Visual Basic
for DOS still has virtually all of the important features of Basic PDS 7.1
while adding the ability to create windowed, event driven programs like
Visual Basic for Windows.  These two products are not in competition with
each other. Visual Basic for Windows is for developers who want to develop
Windows applications. Visual Basic for MS-DOS is for developers who have
not yet committed to Windows development. Believe it or not, there are
a lot of people out there that are quite content to use character-mode
applications (DOS Apps) rather than graphical (Windows Apps) ones.

There are also a number of other significant improvements to the Basic
programming environment provided by Visual Basic for DOS. For complete
details, either read the press release or wait for a magazine to do a
review or quick look.

Microsoft and the group that develops our Basic products are committed to
excellence. We take great pride in the products we develop and believe it
or not, we don't play games with our users. We value each one of them and
always solicit their input. If you don't feel you're getting your money's
worth, send us a letter and let us know what your specific grievances are.

-- 
Frederick F. Freeland Jr.                        "Of all the things I've lost,  Microsoft Corporation                               I miss my mind the most!"   One Microsoft Way  
Redmond, WA 98052 (206) 882-8080                                                                                                                                internet: fredf@microsoft.com                                                   arpanet:  fredf%microsoft@uw-beaver.ARPA
uucp:     uunet!microsoft!fredf                                                                                                                                 Opinions expressed over this signature are my OWN and not those of my employer! 

Well, it did occur to me later that I was being harsh in my criticism
of microsoft for the introduction of these basic products.
After all, this partly in response to demands of users with
many different needs.  But trying to figure out where to go next from
QB 4.5 is rather frustrating.  The fact is, most people I know who
want a graphical environment run windows on their machines.  So, what
do I do if I want a Basic that will compile number-crunching programs
written in QB 4.5 and yet will provide the user-interface of
Windows?  Does Visual Basic for Windows provide this? Is it
also compatible with BASIC PDS?
   Secondly, I confess to ignorance of when BASIC PDS was released.
My grievance was mainly concerned with what I perceive to be 
minimal improvements in my programs when altered and compiled
in professional basic a couple of months ago.  It does have some
nice features, particularly for database applications, which I
have not used.  I have used QB 4.5 for quite some time and do
feel that it was an excellent BASIC.
   Lastly, if Visual Basic for DOS is intended to be for the
purpose of generating code that will later be used in VB for
windows, does this mean that VB for windows will support
all the other commands that are available in QB and PDS
(excluding those that constitute "mucking with the system")?
It seems to me that this is a necessary requirement for a
language designed to create applications that are
"portable to and from windows".

I can't be the only user of QB 4.5 who feels this way
because I've seen numerous articles asking about where to
upgrade from QB 4.5.  It is possible that I should have
investigated VB for Windows more carefully, but for the
kind of programs I run, a fairly high level of
compatibilty with QB 4.5 is needed.  If I'm completely
ignorant, please enlighten me.


Ted Carver                ted@rice.edu
i

In article <1992Sep11.170911.10425@microsoft.com> fredf@microsoft.com (Fred Freeland) writes:

>I don't know what you're reading into our press release.  Visual Basic
>for DOS still has virtually all of the important features of Basic PDS 7.1
>...

"virtually"? Could you elaborate on what features it does not 
have?

If it's just new reserved words, no problem. But if applications
cannot be easily ported, that's a big problem...

In <1992Sep11.170911.10425@microsoft.com> fredf@microsoft.com (Fred Freeland) writes:

>I don't know what you're reading into our press release.  Visual Basic
>for DOS still has virtually all of the important features of Basic PDS 7.1
>while adding the ability to create windowed, event driven programs like
>Visual Basic for Windows.  These two products are not in competition with
>each other. Visual Basic for Windows is for developers who want to develop
>Windows applications. Visual Basic for MS-DOS is for developers who have
>not yet committed to Windows development. Believe it or not, there are
>a lot of people out there that are quite content to use character-mode
>applications (DOS Apps) rather than graphical (Windows Apps) ones.



>-- 
>Frederick F. Freeland Jr.                        "Of all the things I've lost,  Microsoft Corporation                               I miss my mind the most!"   One Microsoft Way  

Frederick-
 I for one appreciate your responding.  It's sometimes hard to know who to 
believe, but it's a lot tougher to know WHAT to believe when you haven't
even heard the other side of the story.  Not to say that there aren't 
legitimate gripes out there.  I'm just glad you are taking the time to
provide some information on balance...  -DmG

In article <60275@mimsy.umd.edu> biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow) writes:
>
>"virtually"? Could you elaborate on what features it does not 
>have?
>
>If it's just new reserved words, no problem. But if applications
>cannot be easily ported, that's a big problem...
>
Right off the top of my head, I cannot think of a single thing that was
in BC 7.1 that is not in VB/DOS with the exception of the User Interface
toolkit, which now becomes redundant since the the features
provided by that add-on are now incorporated into the language itself.


-- 
Frederick F. Freeland Jr.                        "Of all the things I've lost,  Microsoft Corporation                               I miss my mind the most!"   One Microsoft Way  
Redmond, WA 98052 (206) 882-8080                                                                                                                                internet: fredf@microsoft.com                                                   arpanet:  fredf%microsoft@uw-beaver.ARPA
uucp:     uunet!microsoft!fredf                                                                                                                                 Opinions expressed over this signature are my OWN and not those of my employer!