QBasic 4.5 Variable Ranges?

Sephiroth

It's been probably fifteen years since I played with QuickBasic, but I recently found my old copy of QuickBasic 4.5, and I decided I'd take a break from my C++ stuff for a week and work onan old 3D engine I had written in QB4.5 years ago. My problem, is that I cannot remember the value ranges for the various data types. I know that an INTEGER type goes from -32768 to 32767, but what about LONG, SINGLE, and DOUBLE?

-[italic][b][red]S[/red][purple]e[/purple][blue]p[/blue][green]h[/green][red]i[/red][purple]r[/purple][blue]o[/blue][green]t[/green][red]h[/red][/b][/italic]

Jakykong

: It's been probably fifteen years since I played with QuickBasic, but
: I recently found my old copy of QuickBasic 4.5, and I decided I'd
: take a break from my C++ stuff for a week and work onan old 3D
: engine I had written in QB4.5 years ago. My problem, is that I
: cannot remember the value ranges for the various data types. I know
: that an INTEGER type goes from -32768 to 32767, but what about LONG,
: SINGLE, and DOUBLE?
:
: -[italic][b][red]S[/red][purple]e[/purple][blue]p[/blue][green]h[/gre
: en][red]i[/red][purple]r[/purple][blue]o[/blue][green]t[/green][red]h
: [/red][/b][/italic]

That information should be available in the online help within QBasic, if I remember correctly. If you don't have the full version, you can download it at http://www.qbcafe.net/qbc/english/download.shtml (the one they've got includes the online help).

I've used Linux for so long that I almost forgot QBasic existed! A nice bit of nostalgia.

Hope it helps!
Sincerely,
Jakykong (Jack Mudge)
jack_mudge@hotmail.com

Sephiroth

: That information should be available in the online help within
: QBasic, if I remember correctly. If you don't have the full version,
: you can download it at
: http://www.qbcafe.net/qbc/english/download.shtml (the one they've
: got includes the online help).
:
: I've used Linux for so long that I almost forgot QBasic existed! A
: nice bit of nostalgia.
:
: Hope it helps!
: Sincerely,
: Jakykong (Jack Mudge)
: jack_mudge@hotmail.com

I have the full version of 4.5 and have since the early 90's. I couldn't find it in the help that you use inside the old DOS IDE. If it is there, it is well hidden.

I am also grabbing QB7.1 from that site, but am a bit curious as to what I'd gain by using it. I grew up with 4.5 and love it. Unless it is something critical, why should I use 7.1 over 4.5?

*EDIT*

I know it isn't related, but I noticed that running QB4.5 in Vista uses 100% of one CPU (Pentium D/3.40GHz) and in XP it uses 50% of one (P4/3.20GHz), but in 98SE on my old P2/233 it only uses about 5%. What the HECK are XP and Vista doing that causes QB to destroy CPU like that?

-[italic][b][red]S[/red][purple]e[/purple][blue]p[/blue][green]h[/green][red]i[/red][purple]r[/purple][blue]o[/blue][green]t[/green][red]h[/red][/b][/italic]

Jakykong

: : That information should be available in the online help within
: : QBasic, if I remember correctly. If you don't have the full version,
: : you can download it at
: : http://www.qbcafe.net/qbc/english/download.shtml (the one they've
: : got includes the online help).
: :
: : I've used Linux for so long that I almost forgot QBasic existed! A
: : nice bit of nostalgia.
: :
: : Hope it helps!
: : Sincerely,
: : Jakykong (Jack Mudge)
: : jack_mudge@hotmail.com
:
: I have the full version of 4.5 and have since the early 90's. I
: couldn't find it in the help that you use inside the old DOS IDE.
: If it is there, it is well hidden.
:
: I am also grabbing QB7.1 from that site, but am a bit curious as to
: what I'd gain by using it. I grew up with 4.5 and love it. Unless
: it is something critical, why should I use 7.1 over 4.5?
:
: *EDIT*
:
: I know it isn't related, but I noticed that running QB4.5 in Vista
: uses 100% of one CPU (Pentium D/3.40GHz) and in XP it uses 50% of
: one (P4/3.20GHz), but in 98SE on my old P2/233 it only uses about
: 5%. What the HECK are XP and Vista doing that causes QB to destroy
: CPU like that?
:
: -[italic][b][red]S[/red][purple]e[/purple][blue]p[/blue][green]h[/gre
: en][red]i[/red][purple]r[/purple][blue]o[/blue][green]t[/green][red]h
: [/red][/b][/italic]

Honestly, I was never impressed with 7.1. I didn't find much in the way of significant advantages over 4.5, and the language differs slightly between them. I'd stick to 4.5.

In the mean time, I downloaded it and compiled DOSbox (got me nostalgic... darn it. I guess I'll be picking up QBasic again over the next few days...).

The minmum and maximum limits are available under Help->Contents->Data Types (now that I had a chance to look for it). That page has a short table.

[note that I can't cite any references for the following. I've heard these, but I really don't know for sure, so most of this may be total speculation.]

I think 2K, XP, and Vista use the 8086-emu mode of the CPU to run any DOS program, and are just horribly inefficient at managing that mode. They probably figured, if you're using a DOS program, you probably don't need the machine to be doing much, so it affords that sort of inefficiency.

If it were me, I'd grab a real copy of DOS and a processor emulator like qemu or bochs (or get DOSBox, if it runs in windows... I'm not sure that it does, though). If you're using 100% of your CPU, those programs WILL be more efficient, sadly. That doesn't mean they'll be as efficient as a real DOS box would be, simply because they're emulating a processor within a processor.

Hope it helps!
Sincerely,
Jakykong (Jack Mudge)
jack_mudge@hotmail.com

Sephiroth

: Honestly, I was never impressed with 7.1. I didn't find much in the
: way of significant advantages over 4.5, and the language differs
: slightly between them. I'd stick to 4.5.
:
Alright, that's what I figured, since Microsoft LOVES breaking their software between versions.

: The minmum and maximum limits are available under
: Help->Contents->Data Types (now that I had a chance to look for it).
: That page has a short table.
:
Will check it out in a bit.

: I think 2K, XP, and Vista use the 8086-emu mode of the CPU to run
: any DOS program, and are just horribly inefficient at managing that
: mode. They probably figured, if you're using a DOS program, you
: probably don't need the machine to be doing much, so it affords that
: sort of inefficiency.
:
: If it were me, I'd grab a real copy of DOS and a processor emulator
: like qemu or bochs (or get DOSBox, if it runs in windows... I'm not
: sure that it does, though). If you're using 100% of your CPU, those
: programs WILL be more efficient, sadly. That doesn't mean they'll be
: as efficient as a real DOS box would be, simply because they're
: emulating a processor within a processor.
:
Why do that? I have a Tandy 486SX with 8MB of RAM running DOS 6.22 and Win3.11 in my computer room! I also have a P2/233 with 98SE, a P3/800 with 98SE, a Pentium 133 with 98SE, and a P3/866 with 98SE! I can do it for real. Just found the CPU usage odd. Oh, and I don't rent out my old machines.

-[italic][b][red]S[/red][purple]e[/purple][blue]p[/blue][green]h[/green][red]i[/red][purple]r[/purple][blue]o[/blue][green]t[/green][red]h[/red][/b][/italic]