tom (01/17/83)
Following is a digest of the information I received from my request.
Apparently not many people have opinions on the subjects involved. Most
unusual was the fact that of seven or so companys producing C compilers
for the PC, only two people responded that they were using any of them.
There must be more PC C users out there, so please drop me a line and let
me know what you are compiling with. Thanks in advance.
______________________________________________________________________________
To answer a couple of your questions:
1. I posted a comm program in basic, and will give it to you for free
if you'll send me a blank diskette. All donations accepted.
2. Interpreted Basic can access all memory, but only by using the
"DEF SEG" feature. Compiled Basic can access all memory by using
long procedure call & return, but I have not written programs big
enough to tell how well the linker handles this to tell for sure.
Charles Perkins
decvax!teklabs!charliep
Tektronix M.S. 50-383
Beaverton, Oregon 97077
ph# (503) 644-0835
______________________________________________________________________________
I own an IBM PC, and recently purchased a Princeton
Color Graphics monitor. It's very good.
(excellent resolution, crisp color transitions, good
brightness, etc.)
There are two C compilers that I have used on the PC:
The C86 C Compiler from Computer Innovations, Inc.
(Lincroft, NJ). A full implementation of the
white C book by Kernighan + Ritchie. Includes
overlay support and a math library that uses the
8087 co-processor (if you have one).
The Lattice C Compiler from Lifeboat Associates (NY, NY)
includes the portable i/o library (fopen, fclose, etc.
instead of the open, close stuff that comes with
C86.
Both compilers are good.
Jim McParland
ABI - Holmdel
hou5e!jjm
______________________________________________________________________________
>From mcnc!duke!harpo!decvax!utzoo!utcsrgv!peterr Sat Jan 8 13:16:31 1983
Make sure that you can actually get a bare-bone machine before you go out and
buy the other stuff. It has been hard to get 16K no-disk machines.
Interpreted BASIC can only access 64K code+BASIC data, but you can PEEK/POKE
and CALL machine code subr's in the entire address space.
There's a section in the BASIC reference manual that discussess writing software
so that it runs on both the B/W and colour boards; read that and you should be
ok.
[ NOTE: In Pittsburgh, finding a bare-bones machine was no problem. The
local IBM "New Products center" had them in stock. - Tom ]
______________________________________________________________________________
I don't have too many things to say about your configuration; mine is vir-
tually 'straight' IBM. I can tell you that the upper 48K on the main board
is socketed in my machine, and at 4116 prices nowadays, a 16K basic machine
is the way to go. Tandon DS 320K drives can be had for less than half the
IBM asking price from various suppliers. I don't the the SS drives at 160K
per drive are worth the trouble.
You might make sure about wanting a "standard" hardcopy device, though. The
most common "standard" IBM output device is an EPSON MX-80 driven by a paral-
lel port. An oddball configuration, if your contract software needs hard-
el port myself to drive a Durango 820 business machine which has a 160 cpm
printer integral with it. It works.
By all means, buy the Technical Reference Manual. It's a goldmine of infor-
mation.
And yes, you can address more than 64K in uSoft BASIC. Actually you do any-
way, the uSoft manual states that the basic program's \workspace\ is limited
to 64K; add the compiler code space and you've got more. But seriously, the
only way to do what you want with uSoft BASIC is with the DEF SEG statement
and PEEK and POKE and CALL. DEFSEG defines a 64K segment base for the PEEK,
POKE and CALL (assembly subroutine).
...
- Chuck Guzis
fortune!guzis
______________________________________________________________________________
Yes - the best bang for the buck is a bare bones machine.
If it for work then include security furniture from the beginning.
...
The best terminal simulator that I know of comes from Jim
Holtman (harpo!whuxlb!jph), is written in Pascal and uses
the assembler interface supplied with the IBM Comm. Pakage.
I've used the Lattice C compiler a modest amount and it seems
to work fine. Right now I'm having a problem getting assembly
subroutines to work but that could be problems with my understanding
of the assembly language or problems with the IBM linker command.
Joe T. Hall
IW 1F-249
ihuxb!pax
______________________________________________________________________________
[ END OF DIGEST ]
I might comment here that I am going for the system and suppliers
that I mentioned in my original posting. My system will have 320K RAM, 2 320K
drives,a 16 color-80 char/line monitor(690 dots horz),RS232 and parallel ports,
and a 120 cps printer all for about $4K (including everything). If one tried to
get this system as a whole from IBM, one would end up with a 40 char/line color
monitor, an 80 cps printer, and a bill for around $6K. The choice was obvious.
Thanks to all who responded,
Tom Neuendorffer
decvax or mcnc or floyd !idis!tom