"shuba" wrote in message
...
Jerry wrote:
Actually, I rather admire Max. He is the only "alternative thinker"
in this newsgroup willing to put his theories to the test, investing
a considerable amount of time and money in the process.

Theories? You mean the incomprehensible gibberish on his "zero
origin" page?

I don't suppose I should criticize you for your inabillity to
comprehend the zero origin concept. It is indeed incomprehensible.
And trying to explain it to someone who has no intention of trying
to understand it is impossible.

Well, whatever. You're right that he deserves some
credit for getting his hands dirty attempting to do real
experiments. However, doing this kind of thing in isolation, as
he appears to be doing, isn't likely to be hugely productive. Max
could use some of his resources to work with (perhaps pay for) an
experimentalist for collaboration or something. Cripes, the guy
is still using DOS and QBASIC.

Does it really matter? It gets the job done. Qbasic is an excellent
communication tool in my opinion.

"using DOS" I presume refers to the speed control system I employed
to maintain a constant housing rotation rate, and to monitor the
housing-freedisc relationship in the previous experiment. Perhaps
you would like to try that using your wonderous high level language?
But you really won't have a clue how many clock cycles are used in
each of your high level instructions, will you? You will in fact not
have a clue what's going on.

The program was finally written in MASM assembler after I gave up
tearing my hair out using DEBUG, which is just about the lowest
possible level of programming one can use. Does the phrase "low
level programming language" suggest to you that it's a simple system
of programming that's beneath your dignity to be seen using? It may
seem so to you, but it's the high level programming languages that
are made easy to use, so that any dummy can use them with a mimimum
of training. *But they are extremely restrictive*.

He certainly seems bright enough
to learn skills used in the twenty-first century, say Linux and
Python instead, which would be immensely more useful, at least
assuming he wants to branch out and do something besides trying to
support such cranky silliness as seen in the title of this thread.

I wonder why that doesn't bother me?

-----

Max Keon

Max "krazy" Keon wrote:

"shuba" wrote in message

Well, whatever. You're right that he deserves some
credit for getting his hands dirty attempting to do real
experiments. However, doing this kind of thing in isolation, as
he appears to be doing, isn't likely to be hugely productive. Max
could use some of his resources to work with (perhaps pay for) an
experimentalist for collaboration or something. Cripes, the guy
is still using DOS and QBASIC.

Does it really matter? It gets the job done. Qbasic is an excellent
communication tool in my opinion.

In other words, you have no intention of communicating with
people who actively do state-of-the-art experimental work. Sorry
for presuming you might have ambitions other than to be a crank.

"using DOS" I presume refers to the speed control system I employed
to maintain a constant housing rotation rate, and to monitor the
housing-freedisc relationship in the previous experiment. Perhaps
you would like to try that using your wonderous high level language?

DOS is an operating system. QBASIC is a programming language.
Linux is an operating system. Python is a programming language.
I was simply suggesting that familiarizing yourself with the
second set might be worthwhile.

But you really won't have a clue how many clock cycles are used in
each of your high level instructions, will you? You will in fact not
have a clue what's going on.

The program was finally written in MASM assembler after I gave up
tearing my hair out using DEBUG, which is just about the lowest
possible level of programming one can use. Does the phrase "low
level programming language" suggest to you that it's a simple system
of programming that's beneath your dignity to be seen using? It may
seem so to you, but it's the high level programming languages that
are made easy to use, so that any dummy can use them with a mimimum
of training. *But they are extremely restrictive*.

Let's compare apples to apples. Linux is *far* less restrictive
than DOS, and Python is *far* less restrictive than QBASIC. As I
said, why not contact some people involved in serious
experimental research and solicit their opinions and advice?


---Tim Shuba---

"shuba" wrote in message
...
Max "krazy" Keon wrote:
"shuba" wrote in message

Well, whatever. You're right that he deserves some
credit for getting his hands dirty attempting to do real
experiments. However, doing this kind of thing in isolation, as
he appears to be doing, isn't likely to be hugely productive. Max
could use some of his resources to work with (perhaps pay for) an
experimentalist for collaboration or something. Cripes, the guy
is still using DOS and QBASIC.

Does it really matter? It gets the job done. Qbasic is an excellent
communication tool in my opinion.

In other words, you have no intention of communicating with
people who actively do state-of-the-art experimental work. Sorry
for presuming you might have ambitions other than to be a crank.

Just because you have a problem understand QBASIC doesn't imply
that everyone else does. It's a very simple and effective
communication tool.

"using DOS" I presume refers to the speed control system I employed
to maintain a constant housing rotation rate, and to monitor the
housing-freedisc relationship in the previous experiment. Perhaps
you would like to try that using your wonderous high level language?

DOS is an operating system. QBASIC is a programming language.
Linux is an operating system. Python is a programming language.
I was simply suggesting that familiarizing yourself with the
second set might be worthwhile.

That's what I would do if the need ever arose.

But you really won't have a clue how many clock cycles are used in
each of your high level instructions, will you? You will in fact not
have a clue what's going on.

The program was finally written in MASM assembler after I gave up
tearing my hair out using DEBUG, which is just about the lowest
possible level of programming one can use. Does the phrase "low
level programming language" suggest to you that it's a simple system
of programming that's beneath your dignity to be seen using? It may
seem so to you, but it's the high level programming languages that
are made easy to use, so that any dummy can use them with a mimimum
of training. *But they are extremely restrictive*.

Let's compare apples to apples. Linux is *far* less restrictive
than DOS, and Python is *far* less restrictive than QBASIC. As I
said, why not contact some people involved in serious
experimental research and solicit their opinions and advice?

Let's get back to the DOS-Linux comparison when trying to gain
direct access to the COM ports. You really don't know what you're
talking about, do you. The only way to monitor housing-disc rotation
times is by direct access to the processor and COM ports, and that
cannot be done with any version of Windows, and it cannot be done
with Linux. In DOS, one has complete control over the COM ports,
and access to the very heart of the processor.

And how do you mask all interrupts in Linux, or Windows, even using
your high level, user friendly languages? That is essential to any
timer program, you know. Don't you? Since Python is under the control
of Linux, it's hardly likely that it will gain direct access to the
COM ports. In fact it won't.

Debug can still be found living out a rather low key existence in
the Windows\System32 directory of XP, but is now stripped of much
of its power.

Test your ability to precisely follow instructions, and go along
on this little Debug excursion. You won't of course, but someone
may like to try it. It performs the simple task of placing the words
"SHUBA THE GREAT" onto the screen. Performing that same task in
Qbasic requires this little program
LOCATE 10, 20: PRINT "SHUBA THE GREAT"
and that will be much the same for any other high level programming
language. The file can then be very easily saved.

Compare the level of programming difficulty with your high level
language. And note the close relationship between yourself and the
processor. If you've made a mistake in the program, the computer
will lock up when you run the result of your programming. But
Windows provides a way out. That's why you can never have total
control.

Copy Debug.exe onto a floppy disc, otherwise any program that you
write will be written to a directory that really should be left
alone. You will find the Command prompt in the Start menu, under
accessories. Click on it, and then in the window type a: (enter)
Carry on from there.

a:\debug
-a100
1361:0100 mov ax,b800
1361:0103 mov ds,ax
1361:0105 mov ax,7053
1361:0108 mov bx,400
1361:010B call 15a
1361:010E mov al,48
1361:0110 call 15a
1361:0113 mov al,55
1361:0115 call 15a
1361:0118 mov al,42
1361:011A call 15a
1361:011D mov al,41
1361:011F call 15a
1361:0122 mov al,20
1361:0124 call 15a
1361:0127 mov al,54
1361:0129 call 15a
1361:012C mov al,48
1361:012E call 15a
1361:0131 mov al,45
1361:0133 call 15a
1361:0136 mov al,20
1361:0138 call 15a
1361:013B mov al,47
1361:013D call 15a
1361:0140 mov al,52
1361:0142 call 15a
1361:0145 mov al,45
1361:0147 call 15a
1361:014A mov al,41
1361:014C call 15a
1361:014F mov al,54
1361:0151 call 15a
1361:0154 mov ah,4c
1361:0156 int 21
1361:0158 add bx,2 Note: Earlier Debug versions
1361:015B mov [bx],ax require mov word ptr [bx],ax
1361:015D ret
1361:015E nop
1361:015F nop
1361:0160 nop
-r bx
BX ???? (current value)
:0 (change to 0)
-r cx
CX ???? (current value)
:160 (change to 160)
-n mee.com (file name is mee.com
-w (saves the file in the current directory)
Writing 00160 bytes
-q (exits debug)

Press ALT and ENTER to change to full screen mode.
Then at the a:\ prompt
a:\cls
a:\mee

After all of your programming effort, you find that once you've
closed the Command prompt window, XP in its infinite wisdom denies
you permission to run your program again. You can only do so while
the current window is active. But it can certainly be run in 98 or
95.

As you can perhaps understand, nobody is going to program in Debug
unless it's absolutely essential.

-----

Max Keon

Max "krazy" Keon wrote:

Just because you have a problem understand QBASIC doesn't imply
that everyone else does. It's a very simple and effective
communication tool.

Um, I hate to keep bringing this up, but QBASIC is a programming
language.

[..]

Test your ability to precisely follow instructions, and go along
on this little Debug excursion. You won't of course, but someone
may like to try it.

Your instructions are a bit problematic.
#1 I don't have a floppy drive
#2 .exe files do not execute on my machines
#3 I have no a:\ prompt
#4 I have no Start menu
Feel free to waste more of your time correcting these issues.


I'm sorry if I've caused undue consternation by suggesting that
you consult with serious experimentalists. It was actually meant
as a positive idea, but I see is was an anathema to you.


---Tim Shuba---