Talk:IBM BASICA

Text and/or other creative content from this version of IBM BASICA was copied or moved into IBM BASIC with this edit on 14:04, 22 December 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Page moved

I have moved this page from "BASICA programming language" to "Microsoft BASICA interpreter" because it is not a programming language, it is strictly speaking an interpreter for a dialect of the BASIC programming language. cprompt 00:04 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

About ROM BASIC

What's about Rom Basic?
I bought an IBM PC in 1986 and I found Basica on DOS 2.1 diskette. But does it need a rom basic to run Basica? —Demetano — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.139.172.94 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I clearly remember that the BASICA from PC DOS required the CBASIC (Cassette BASIC) in ROM and would not work on clones. I think it relied on a number of software interrupts being installed in the Interrupt vector table at boot time. Try running it in a console window on Windows, preferably with "START /LOW" given how DOS programs hogs the CPU. I can run any GW-BASIC version fine, because it does not check the DOS version, unlike other DOS components, but am too lazy to locate the DOS 2.1 diskette Adam Mirowski 15:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't seem right to me; as I remember, the lineup was regular IBM ROM BASIC (made by MS and invoked with the command "basic" and "basica" (BASIC Advanced) which used more RAM but added extra functions, particularly the drawing functions also seen in GW-BASIC. BASICA is to PC-DOS as GW-BASIC is to MS-DOS; while I don't doubt that BASICA requires the IBM rom, functionally GW-BASIC and BASICA were identical. Presumably the name change was due to IBM holding the rights to the name BASICA. Certainly worth further investgation 209.202.16.210 (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accurate

Is the "Example session" accurate? I don't remember "Ready." reposnses and ">" prompts after entering each program line. The screen shot doesn't show them, either. -- Mikeblas 13:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the most recent edits helped make it more accurate. -- Mikeblas 05:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not accurate indeed. This is easy to check with any version of GW-BASIC.EXE: there is no "Ready" prompt, and the blanks do not quite match either. Given how the screen-oriented editor works, the Ready prompt would have no sense anyway, as it would destroy a line which the user is free to modify and accept as new while it is still visible on screen just by pressing Enter over it. I used BASICA for a few weeks a great many years ago and do not remember GW-BASIC being very different. Adam Mirowski 15:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it, then. Let's post something more accurate. -- Mikeblas 17:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh... Now, the screenshot is not BASICA either. The BASICA I used on PC DOS had IBM name and the word "Advanced" in the copyright message. Maybe this is plain BASIC.EXE, as there were 2 disk BASIC versions in PC DOS, in addition to ROM CBASIC. I forgot what exactly the diff was, maybe BASIC.EXE had less features and less memory requirements. I think that later, one of these binaires just loaded the other one. Adam Mirowski 18:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROM-Basic was evidently available to different OEM vendors, who in turn midified the copyright. The basic from Compaq basic 3.31 say this

The COMPAQ Personal Computer BASIC
Version 3.31

(C) Copyright Compaq Computer Corp. 1982, 1988
(C) Copyright Microsoft Corp. 1983, 1987
60117 Bytes free
Ok
The version of IBM Basica i have says:

The IBM Personal Computer Basic
Version A2.10 Copyright IBM Corp. 1981, 1982, 1983
60455 Bytes free

Ok

On the other hand, there was Disk basic (which survived to DOS 3.1, but 3.0 was the last version that did not check for DOS version. The version for 2.10 says:

The IBM Personal Computer Basic
Version D2.10 Copyright IBM Corp. 1981, 1982, 1983
60891 Bytes free

Ok

After vers 3.20, basic.com became a loader for basica.com. From 3.30/3.40=4.00, the DOSver check ceased.

I think the tandy 100 (which i used for many years), ran on basic 1.0. In any case, DEFFN etc were not functional. Here are some interesting references. http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/comphist/gates.htm#tc35 and http://oldcomputers.net/kc.html for some interesting links.

I do think that GW-BASIC is just a rename of basica. The idea is to continue the same interface that stems from the Altair BASIC, through to computers that had no evident rom-basic. The screen shots i took were based on these basics running in Windows 2000.

--Wendy.krieger (talk) 09:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what IBM Basic from OS/2 and IBMDOS 5 says.

The IBM Basic
Version A3.40 Copyright IBM Corp. 1981, 1987
60225 Bytes free

Ok

--Wendy.krieger (talk) 06:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Cassette Basic was a feature of IBM PC Class Machines. The COMPAQ Personal Computer Basic, from MS-DOS 3.31 is GWBASIC, with Compaq's Copyright notice.
The IBM Personal Computer Basic, is Advanced Basic from PC-DOS 2.1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.207.6 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GW-BASIC vs. IBM BASIC and BASICA

BASIC and BASICA call routines in the proprietary Cassette Basic ROMS installed on the motherboard of genuine IBM manufacture PCs. GW-BASIC includes those routines in the object code of GW-BASIC. A version of GW-BASIC functionally equivalent to a version of BASICA will be larger, but will run on IBM PCs or generic MSDOS PCs lacking the Cassette Basic ROMs, but BASIC and BASICA will only run on IBM PCs with the Cassette Basic ROMs. While the goal may have been to keep the executable file of BASICA small by calling routines already present in the default Cassette Basic, a goal apparently was to make BASICA proprietary to IBM PC and IBM PC DOS, with the result that many of us using PCs and Basic in those days used GW-BASIC whether we were using IBM PCs and PC DOS or brandless PCs and MSDOS (or having to develop for both). Given a choice between universal and proprietary, universal just makes sense. Naaman Brown (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article rename

BASICA is the name of the program for Advanced BASIC for IBM PCs I would recommend renaming the article IBM BASIC, and including information for all 5 versions of BASIC for the IBM Personal Computer and compatibles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.207.6 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely. There are far, far more than five versions of BASIC for IBM PCs. This article deals only with the original version of BASIC that was bundled with the IBM PC. Considering that your incompetent, unsigned edits on this page took a half hour to clean up, such suggestions from unregistered, anonymous editors are difficult to take seriously. —Quicksilver^{T @} 23:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]