Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!inmos!hillm@aragorn.inmos.co.uk
From: hillm@aragorn.inmos.co.uk (Mark Hill)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: BASIC on my PC/AT compatible
Message-ID: <9723@ganymede.inmos.co.uk>
Date: 17 Aug 90 20:13:04 GMT
References: <1990Aug9.235419.3608@hellgate.utah.edu>
Sender: news@inmos.co.uk
Reply-To: hillm@inmos.co.uk (Mark Hill)
Organization: INMOS Limited, Bristol, UK.
Lines: 24

In article <1990Aug9.235419.3608@hellgate.utah.edu> cyang%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Cheng Yang) writes:
>
>Hi, I bought an IBM PC/AT (16MHz 286) compatible last year.  It worked fine
>until I tried to run BASIC on that machine yesterday.  I am now runing 
>IBM-DOS 4.00 on my machine and it is always dead when I type "basic"

IBM versions of DOS are well known for using part of the ROM BASIC when
running BASIC from disk. Probably a hangover from cassette BASIC (remember
'81?) which would speed up operation considerably since most of BASIC
would be sitting there in ROM not needing any time to load in from cassette.
Compatibles don't have BASIC in ROM since the code is copyright for IBM[tm]
and it is a dead giveaway for a clone manufacturer to have IBM copyrighted
software sitting on the main board - they just copied the IBM ROMs. Naughty
naughty. Hence clones don't tend to run IBM BASIC too well.

Just a thought... Why run IBM BASIC? It's horrible! Try QuickBASIC or 
TurboBASIC or any other sort... bar GW-BASIC or IBM BASIC. Please.

Mk

Mark Hill, INMOS Limited  | uk mail: hillm@inmos.co.uk or ukc!inmos!hillm
1000 Aztec West, Bristol, | us mail: uunet!inmos.com!hillm
England BS12 4SQ          | Internet: @col.hp.com:hillm@inmos-c
+44 454 616616 x525  `Show me an optimist, and I'll show you an aardvark.' DP