Re: Interpreter for old basic programs from the line number era

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:46:12 +0000 (UTC), "Auric__"
<not.my.real@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 00:53:19 GMT,  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 23:58:56 +0000 (UTC), "Auric__"
>> <not.my.real@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> 
>> <snip>
>>>
>>>Yeah, I know, I shouldn't complain, especially after Python or 
>>>whatever language it is where whitespace is important.
>> Wouldn't touch such a language with a 10 foot pole.  :-)
>> 
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> ... (I'm not going to d/l it to find out -- I'm on
>>>>>>> v-e-e-e-e-e-r-y slow dial-up and most downloads are painful.)
>>>>
>>>> How slow is it?  :-)    (shades of Johnny Carson) :-)
>>>
>>>It's SO slow... snails yell at it to speed up as they zoom past.
>>>
>>>> I have been on 64k ISDN for most of the last 15 years or so.  
>>>
>>>I'm using AOL right now. No idea how fast it really is -- the
>>>software claims 100+k but I think it's closer to 30k.
>> Wouldn't touch AOL with a 100 meter pole.  :-)
>
>I wouldn't either... except that where I spend my days, it's AOL or 
>nothing... and I have no internet at home.

You ought to be able to get a POTS dialup almost anywhere, even if it
is an old V.32 connection.  And unless you are MILES from a CO even a
degraded V.9x connection should work.  Assumming you even have a POTS
line.  I wouldn't not have at least one around.

Before the ISDN line, I used a Mototola Codex V-Fast modem (which I
beleive even predates V.32  Fastest I ever got was 26,400.  It
wouldn't do 28,800)  I still have it, as a last ditch backup to all
the other modems I have.

>> Ever since the 3.0 & 3.1 days, every system that I ever saw that
>> had AOL installed, was FUBARed in some manner.  It was usually
>> easier to reinstall the system than to try to get rid of AOL.  :-)
>
>I know. Believe me, I know.
>
>> BTW, DslReports.com (I think it was) used to have a speed tester,
>> If you really care about that.
>
>Sounds right, but this connection is so slow that it's not really 
>worth it to run the test.
>
>>>DeviantArt.
>>
>> Reference?
>
>http://www.deviantart.com/
>
>Art site. When I first joined (not using this nym), it was fairly fast 
>and pretty simple -- now it's bloated and complex. (Opening one page 
>requires downloading a number of files -- not including graphics -- 
>and can take up to a minute on my connection.)
>
>>>Like a new kernel -- yikes again.
>> I usually buy those on a CD.
>
>I have financial issues that prevent me from doing so -- and I like to 
>use the latest "stable" 2.4 kernel available. (Can't use 2.6 due to 
>severe weirdness with X on my system, the nature of which I don't know 
>how to track down. Works fine on the command line though.)
Sounds like Linux -- I use FreeBsd.  Actually, a friend downloads the
..ISOs and burns CDs for me.  Although, I do have a old Linux system,
with a 1.2.13 kernel on a 0.99.pl14 base.  :-)  Never really tried any
later version.

-- 
ArarghMail803 at [drop the 'http://www.'
from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html

To reply by email, remove the extra stuff from the reply address.