I think it's time to post something in the PB forum again. Bob Zale was the author of the various
PowerBASIC compilers and a member of our forum until his death. He died on November 6, 2012. Yes,
time passes quickly.
Hutch has always enjoyed working with PB and has placed great emphasis on this subforum. Strange
things have been happening in our forum lately. I can only hope that Hutch's ideas and basic design
don't suffer. This includes the continuation and maintenance of the PowerBASIC subforum.
The archive below the post is called ea.pdf and contains both Win32 and DOS software written with
PowerBASIC. Both programs behave identically and provide the same results. The Windows program can
be started from the Explorer or from the command line and worked well. I've been able to test it on
Windows 7 and 10 (64 bit) and in a 32 bit virtual machine.
I tested the DOS program under plain DOS, with a virtual machine and under DOSBox. The only
restriction is the presence of a 386/387 combination. This is ensured by the software.
After starting, both applications show the following screen:
************************************************************
* That's the trial for the correctness of the estimation. *
* The original expression and the simplified equation are *
* calculated for comparison: *
************************************************************
Original formula (PowerBASIC) = 1.70997594667669699
Simplified formula (Assembly Language) = 1.70997594667669699
Please, press any key to end the application ...
Even if you are not directly interested in solving the exercise, you shall definitely read eae.pdf.
This is essential for understanding. I hope that the explanation of the problem shown in it and the
calculation to solve it are understandable. I would be pleased about test results under other
operating systems and configurations. Thank you in advance.
Hi Gunther,
Quote from: Gunther on August 10, 2023, 10:46:49 AMEven if you are not directly interested in solving the exercise, you shall definitely read eae.pdf.
This is essential for understanding. I hope that the explanation of the problem shown in it and the
calculation to solve it are understandable.
Yes, easy to follow and understand.
QuoteI would be pleased about test results under other
operating systems and configurations. Thank you in advance.
= = =
P-III (SSE1)
Microsoft Windows 2000 [Version 5.00.2195]
EADOS.EXE and EAWIN32.EXE both run.
The Operating System/2 Version is 4.50
EADOS.EXE runs in a VDM.
EAWIN32.EXE "WIN 98 No Support".
= = =
Intel(R) Pentium(R) M processor 1.70GHz (SSE2)
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
EADOS.EXE and EAWIN32.EXE both run.
= = =
Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-4005U CPU @ 1.70GHz (SSE4)
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.3.9600]
EADOS.EXE did not run, ~no support in 64-bit windows.
EAWIN32.EXE ran.
= = =
Regards,
Steve N.
Dear Steve,
Thank you very much for your quick and above all well-founded answer.
Quote from: FORTRANS on August 10, 2023, 11:39:58 PMYes, easy to follow and understand.
I'm glad to hear that. It is not easy to explain a mathematical question in an understandable way.
Apparently, I've halfway succeeded this time.
Your results are instructive. It's clear that under Win32 both applications should run flawlessly.
The picture is completely different under Win64. Only the Win32 program will run there. For the DOS
application you already have to start a virtual machine, otherwise there is no chance.
Under plain DOS, on the other hand, the Win32 program doesn't run. But it might be possible to make
it work with Japhet's DOS Extender after all. I'll try that next week when I get back home. At the
moment I am still working at CERN.
Hi Gunther!
:thumbsup:
Working in the phone but, this time, eados program is running in emulated x64 i5 (IsCPU say have SSE4.2 and others instruccions) with FreeDOS OS.
Emulator is iBochs, an adaptation of Bochs from same author of iDosBox.
Regards, HSE.
Later: I was forgetting to test PowerBasic 3.5 and JwasmR, but obviously they work perfectly building the eados program.
HSE,
that's incredible.
Quote from: HSE on August 11, 2023, 09:07:11 AMEmulator is iBochs, an adaptation of Bochs from same author of iDosBox.
Are you talking about an Apple phone or Android?
Gunther,
Quote from: Gunther on August 11, 2023, 09:55:04 AMAre you talking about an Apple phone or Android?
Android 9
HSE,
iDosBox sounded like Apple to me.
Quote from: HSE on August 11, 2023, 10:18:54 AMAndroid 9
That doesn't run on my old cell phone.
Gunther,
Quote from: Gunther on August 11, 2023, 07:07:56 PMiDosBox sounded like Apple to me.
Yes, name is confusing.
Quote from: Gunther on August 11, 2023, 07:07:56 PMThat doesn't run on my old cell phone.
Author say that he is targeting Android 11.0. But test in Google Play Store say these apps requiere Android 7.0 or higher.
The phone I use is from the cheaper side, but is an special edition with double ram and storage (4 and 64gb). Somebody made a calculation, and this simple phone is 200000 times the x86 AT I used years ago :biggrin:
HSE,
Quote from: HSE on August 11, 2023, 08:03:28 PMYes, name is confusing.
Yes, indeed.
Another important question. Could you recompile both programs? The DOS application shouldn't have been a
problem. But what about the Win32 program?
I have a few smaller projects in the pipeline. I'll probably post those in this subforum. After that I will slowly
retire from the forum. That's why I would like to know if anyone else can compile PB programs besides me.
Gunther,
Quote from: Gunther on August 11, 2023, 09:24:30 PMBut what about the Win32 program?
I can build EAWin32 with PB CC5 removing "CON." part in console instruccions. That and running in Win10 Box.
Quote from: Gunther on August 11, 2023, 09:24:30 PMslowly
Slowest possible, or just stay around.
Quote from: Gunther on August 11, 2023, 09:24:30 PMI would like to know if anyone else can compile PB programs besides me.
Newer PB versions are not free. I have the special free download because Hutch tell us some years ago.
HSE,
thank you for your answer.
Quote from: HSE on August 13, 2023, 12:27:09 AMI can build EAWin32 with PB CC5 removing "CON." part in console instruccions. That and running in Win10 Box.
Good, I will try to look for compatibility with older versions in the future. The CON instructions are also not
required in principle for these application, but are only decorative additions.
Quote from: HSE on August 13, 2023, 12:27:09 AMNewer PB versions are not free. I have the special free download because Hutch tell us some years ago.
Yes, of course, Hutch. He is missing with his knowledge and attitude everywhere you look.
Quote from: HSE on August 13, 2023, 12:27:09 AMSlowest possible, or just stay around.
As soon as I post the projects I plan to do. That's 3 more little things, maybe only 2. The world will
not end if I don't do this. Long story short: Yes, as soon as possible.
QuoteI would like to know if anyone else can compile PB programs besides me.
Although I haven't used it much, I do still have PB/CC 6.03.
QuoteI would be pleased about test results under other operating systems and configurations. Thank you in advance.
I was able to compile and run EAWIN32 on:
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X 12-Core, 3500 Mhz
Microsoft Windows 11 Pro [Version 10.0.22621]
wjr,
Quote from: wjr on August 27, 2023, 05:42:47 AMI was able to compile and run EAWIN32 on:
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X 12-Core, 3500 Mhz
Microsoft Windows 11 Pro [Version 10.0.22621]
thank you very much for your answer. It is good to know that other members can still work with
PowerBASIC. You've also been on the forum for a very long time, and of course you know that Hutch
has always loved it. It would be very nice if you would post more again, if your time allows.
I think that things are not going well in the forum at the moment; the course isn't good. But hey,
what do I know? I'm nobody.