3 ms·

> Microsoft wasn't necessarily a "small company with nothing to lose", either. They had the best BASIC interpreter in the business[0] and everyone licensed from

> Microsoft wasn't necessarily a "small company with nothing to lose", either. They had the best BASIC interpreter in the business[0] and everyone licensed from them already. Nope and nope. The “best” is subjective but BBC Basic (as seen on Acorn BBC Micros) was fscking awesome. Far better than Microsoft BASIC in my opinion. Locomotive BASIC then took the BBC BASIC dialect and improved upon it. Amstrad shipped that on their CPC 464 models. There was a BASIC for the Atari ST I’ve used too which was pretty awesome. Microsoft BASIC might have been widely used but it was neither universal nor the “best”.

WorldMaker 4y ago
Well the obvious context here when talking about IBM's PC deals was "best" 1) "in the US" (eliminating BBC Basic), and 2) "at the time" (Atari ST happened after the IBM PC).
- laumars 4y ago
  Their context wasn’t about IBM buying BASIC, it was about IBM buying DOS from Microsoft. Plus given IBM was a global brand it seems a bit self-congratulatory to argue that only US-developed BASICs count anyway. However even taking your comment at face value, it’s still not true. There were plenty of better US-developed BASICs too. What IBM wanted was ubiquity rather than technical excellence.
  - WorldMaker 4y ago
    IBM purchased BASIC and DOS from Microsoft in the same transaction. BASIC was the only "OS" installed by default in the first PCs and PC-DOS was an optional extra at launch. Contextually here "best" also means "best fit for IBM to buy". Global brand or not, IBM certainly had US biases: a US headquarters, more engineers and managers in the US making purchasing decisions. I can't argue with you on the subjective quality of other BASICs, and I can't speak to what IBM "wanted" other than what we know they eventually purchased. Their "best fit" may have indeed been entirely "pragmatic" things like "ubiquity" or "cheap" rather than "best technically". > There were plenty of better US-developed BASICs too. Citation needed on "plenty", I think. On the "microcomputer" Microsoft nearly cornered the market on MOS 6502 BASIC at the time and even the ones that didn't have a Microsoft banner at startup still had a licensed Microsoft interpreter under the hood ("Applesoft Basic" and "COMMODORE BASIC", for examples). Of the Wikipedia documented "microcomputer" BASICs that weren't Microsoft's/Microsoft-licensed, two were UK-developed (BBC Basic and Sinclair BASIC), and the only other one (Atari BASIC) is listed as not having a stable release until 1983, two years after the first IBM PC.
    - laumars 4y ago
      > IBM purchased BASIC and DOS from Microsoft in the same transaction. BASIC was the only "OS" installed by default in the first PCs and PC-DOS was an optional extra at launch. Yes, I'm already aware of that. You're building a strawman argument though because that has naff all to do with the statement I was directly responding to: Microsoft wasn't necessarily a "small company with nothing to lose", either. They had the best BASIC interpreter in the business[0] and everyone licensed from them already. > Citation needed on "plenty", I think. BASIC has been around since the 60s, so yes there has been plenty. > On the "microcomputer" Microsoft nearly cornered the market on MOS 6502 BASIC at the time and even the ones that didn't have a Microsoft banner at startup still had a licensed Microsoft interpreter under the hood ("Applesoft Basic" and "COMMODORE BASIC", for examples). I know, I was writing software on those machines at the time. I also already acknowledged Microsoft BASIC was ubiquitous. I was disagreeing that Microsoft BASIC was the best, because it wasn't. It was slower than most others and lacked a lot of features too. Frankly, it was shit. But history seems to only remember the victors it seems. > Of the Wikipedia documented "microcomputer" BASICs that weren't Microsoft's/Microsoft-licensed, two were UK-developed (BBC Basic and Sinclair BASIC), and the only other one (Atari BASIC) is listed as not having a stable release until 1983, two years after the first IBM PC. Well that's clearly wrong then because there were loads. Apple/Integer BASIC (which was originally named GAME BASIC) which was inspired from HP BASIC (unlike Microsoft BASIC which was based from DEC BASIC). TI BASIC (Texas Instruments) was released in the late 70s too. And on the UK side there was Locomotive BASIC, which was based on Mallard BASIC (1980) and inspired by BBC Basic, which was originally Atom BASIC (the Atom being released before the IBM PC and the BBC Micro being released the same year). Sinclair BASIC was also pre-PC (1979). Mallard BASIC competed with CBASIC (mid 70s) and ZBASIC (1980) but I hadn't used those. There were others too. Some for mainframes, some offered as alternative 3rd party ROMs for micro computers, some loadable from cassette or disk, some that compiled instead of interpreted code, etc. It was a really common language. edit: in fact a 5 minute Google has shown several I hadn't even thought of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_computers_with_on-board_BASIC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_computers_with_on-boar... (wikipedia too, so I'm surprised you found such wildly inaccurate information on there), and even that isn't a complete list (I'd suspect even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_BASIC_dialects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_BASIC_dialects isn't a complete list).
buescher 4y ago
BBC Basic did not exist at the time; all Acorn had was Atom Basic. By the time your later Basics came around, Microsoft and the PC were already the extinction-level event for small business micros of the sort that ran CP/M. It's sort of shocking leafing through say, BYTE magazine from the era and realizing how plain it should have been that was happening.
- laumars 4y ago
  BBC BASIC is based on Atom BASIC. Atom BASIC was pretty fast (like BBC BASIC and Apple BASIC, it vastly out performed Microsoft BASIC). Atom BASIC also allowed you to do some really cool stuff too like in-line assembly. Also the BBC Micro was released in the same year as the first IBM PC, so it’s a bit of an exaggeration to say Acorn didn’t have BBC BASIC at that time. Let’s also not forget that the original few generations of the IBM PC was crap for all but business applications (I don’t need to lead though old magazines, I was there in that era). And that it took a while before the IBM-compatibles became reliable (for years there was uncertainty about which PC software would work on which PCs) or even safe from litigation (since IBM sued a few OEMs). It wasn’t until crafty developers (like Carmack and Romero) found ways to make stuff like scrolling PC games - software that before then people didn’t think was possible on a PC - that people started to take it seriously as a family computer. Before then BASIC micros were a much more attractive option; and cheaper too. Edit: it’s also worth noting that the Apple Macintosh, Atari ST and Amiga all ran circles around IBM PCs too. Albeit we are now talking a few years later. Frankly IBM PC + DOS/Windows was amongst the worst micro computers on the market in my opinion. The only reason they dominated was because by the end of the 80s OEMs could build them more cheaply than designing their own hardware. So the market got saturated.
Dwedit 4y ago
The classic way to test out a BASIC interpreter was to see how it parses "FORK=ATOM". BCC Basic is parsing it as FOR K = ATOM and complains that "TO" is missing. Applesoft Basic is parsing it as FOR K = A TO M, and adds spaces when you list it back. C64 Basic is parsing it as FOR K = A TO M as well, but does not add spaces when you list it back. QBASIC and GWBASIC are parsing "fork" and "atom" as variable names.
- laumars 4y ago
  Yeah the parsing for some of the BASICs was weird at times. Some auto-capitalised terms whereas others would list that as a syntax error or some other error. Some even allowed you to abbreviate terms. Locomotive BASIC allowed you to use something like a question mark (I forget the exact punctuation but I think it was a question mark) in place of a PRINT command.

WorldMaker 4y ago

Well the obvious context here when talking about IBM's PC deals was "best" 1) "in the US" (eliminating BBC Basic), and 2) "at the time" (Atari ST happened after the IBM PC).

laumars 4y ago
Their context wasn’t about IBM buying BASIC, it was about IBM buying DOS from Microsoft. Plus given IBM was a global brand it seems a bit self-congratulatory to argue that only US-developed BASICs count anyway. However even taking your comment at face value, it’s still not true. There were plenty of better US-developed BASICs too. What IBM wanted was ubiquity rather than technical excellence.
- WorldMaker 4y ago
  IBM purchased BASIC and DOS from Microsoft in the same transaction. BASIC was the only "OS" installed by default in the first PCs and PC-DOS was an optional extra at launch. Contextually here "best" also means "best fit for IBM to buy". Global brand or not, IBM certainly had US biases: a US headquarters, more engineers and managers in the US making purchasing decisions. I can't argue with you on the subjective quality of other BASICs, and I can't speak to what IBM "wanted" other than what we know they eventually purchased. Their "best fit" may have indeed been entirely "pragmatic" things like "ubiquity" or "cheap" rather than "best technically". > There were plenty of better US-developed BASICs too. Citation needed on "plenty", I think. On the "microcomputer" Microsoft nearly cornered the market on MOS 6502 BASIC at the time and even the ones that didn't have a Microsoft banner at startup still had a licensed Microsoft interpreter under the hood ("Applesoft Basic" and "COMMODORE BASIC", for examples). Of the Wikipedia documented "microcomputer" BASICs that weren't Microsoft's/Microsoft-licensed, two were UK-developed (BBC Basic and Sinclair BASIC), and the only other one (Atari BASIC) is listed as not having a stable release until 1983, two years after the first IBM PC.
  - laumars 4y ago
    > IBM purchased BASIC and DOS from Microsoft in the same transaction. BASIC was the only "OS" installed by default in the first PCs and PC-DOS was an optional extra at launch. Yes, I'm already aware of that. You're building a strawman argument though because that has naff all to do with the statement I was directly responding to: Microsoft wasn't necessarily a "small company with nothing to lose", either. They had the best BASIC interpreter in the business[0] and everyone licensed from them already. > Citation needed on "plenty", I think. BASIC has been around since the 60s, so yes there has been plenty. > On the "microcomputer" Microsoft nearly cornered the market on MOS 6502 BASIC at the time and even the ones that didn't have a Microsoft banner at startup still had a licensed Microsoft interpreter under the hood ("Applesoft Basic" and "COMMODORE BASIC", for examples). I know, I was writing software on those machines at the time. I also already acknowledged Microsoft BASIC was ubiquitous. I was disagreeing that Microsoft BASIC was the best, because it wasn't. It was slower than most others and lacked a lot of features too. Frankly, it was shit. But history seems to only remember the victors it seems. > Of the Wikipedia documented "microcomputer" BASICs that weren't Microsoft's/Microsoft-licensed, two were UK-developed (BBC Basic and Sinclair BASIC), and the only other one (Atari BASIC) is listed as not having a stable release until 1983, two years after the first IBM PC. Well that's clearly wrong then because there were loads. Apple/Integer BASIC (which was originally named GAME BASIC) which was inspired from HP BASIC (unlike Microsoft BASIC which was based from DEC BASIC). TI BASIC (Texas Instruments) was released in the late 70s too. And on the UK side there was Locomotive BASIC, which was based on Mallard BASIC (1980) and inspired by BBC Basic, which was originally Atom BASIC (the Atom being released before the IBM PC and the BBC Micro being released the same year). Sinclair BASIC was also pre-PC (1979). Mallard BASIC competed with CBASIC (mid 70s) and ZBASIC (1980) but I hadn't used those. There were others too. Some for mainframes, some offered as alternative 3rd party ROMs for micro computers, some loadable from cassette or disk, some that compiled instead of interpreted code, etc. It was a really common language. edit: in fact a 5 minute Google has shown several I hadn't even thought of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_computers_with_on-board_BASIC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_computers_with_on-boar... (wikipedia too, so I'm surprised you found such wildly inaccurate information on there), and even that isn't a complete list (I'd suspect even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_BASIC_dialects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_BASIC_dialects isn't a complete list).

buescher 4y ago

BBC Basic did not exist at the time; all Acorn had was Atom Basic. By the time your later Basics came around, Microsoft and the PC were already the extinction-level event for small business micros of the sort that ran CP/M. It's sort of shocking leafing through say, BYTE magazine from the era and realizing how plain it should have been that was happening.

laumars 4y ago
BBC BASIC is based on Atom BASIC. Atom BASIC was pretty fast (like BBC BASIC and Apple BASIC, it vastly out performed Microsoft BASIC). Atom BASIC also allowed you to do some really cool stuff too like in-line assembly. Also the BBC Micro was released in the same year as the first IBM PC, so it’s a bit of an exaggeration to say Acorn didn’t have BBC BASIC at that time. Let’s also not forget that the original few generations of the IBM PC was crap for all but business applications (I don’t need to lead though old magazines, I was there in that era). And that it took a while before the IBM-compatibles became reliable (for years there was uncertainty about which PC software would work on which PCs) or even safe from litigation (since IBM sued a few OEMs). It wasn’t until crafty developers (like Carmack and Romero) found ways to make stuff like scrolling PC games - software that before then people didn’t think was possible on a PC - that people started to take it seriously as a family computer. Before then BASIC micros were a much more attractive option; and cheaper too. Edit: it’s also worth noting that the Apple Macintosh, Atari ST and Amiga all ran circles around IBM PCs too. Albeit we are now talking a few years later. Frankly IBM PC + DOS/Windows was amongst the worst micro computers on the market in my opinion. The only reason they dominated was because by the end of the 80s OEMs could build them more cheaply than designing their own hardware. So the market got saturated.

Dwedit 4y ago

The classic way to test out a BASIC interpreter was to see how it parses "FORK=ATOM". BCC Basic is parsing it as FOR K = ATOM and complains that "TO" is missing. Applesoft Basic is parsing it as FOR K = A TO M, and adds spaces when you list it back. C64 Basic is parsing it as FOR K = A TO M as well, but does not add spaces when you list it back. QBASIC and GWBASIC are parsing "fork" and "atom" as variable names.

laumars 4y ago
Yeah the parsing for some of the BASICs was weird at times. Some auto-capitalised terms whereas others would list that as a syntax error or some other error. Some even allowed you to abbreviate terms. Locomotive BASIC allowed you to use something like a question mark (I forget the exact punctuation but I think it was a question mark) in place of a PRINT command.