Theos PowerBasic Museum 2017

As i have just verified, the PB Forum seems to be down again.
Ok. Sometimes over the weekends they clean up stuff.
Lets see what happens next week.

Assuming that they haven't been up since then, they have then been down for 14 hours. It doesn't take 14 hours to "clean up stuff".

Thanks for starting the PureBasic threads, Theo. I bought a licence a few weeks ago. 32 and 64 bit, in-line x86, AES CBC built in - it is looking good.

Purebasic definitely has potential.

Quote from: David Roberts on July 21, 2013, 01:00:24 PMThanks for starting the PureBasic threads, Theo. I bought a licence a few weeks ago.

More likely that Delphi or C++ will reclaim me, it's about time.

Whatever you choose, you will still be welcome in this Forum.
Tell me your choice.

Let me say that the overall traffic in our Forum here is a bit higher then normal (11 GB).

Quoteim folgenden finden Sie den Datentransfer Ihres Paketes it-berater.org:

Transfervolumen für den 21.07.2013:                 528,75 MB
Transfervolumen der Woche vom 15.07.2013:         3.369,43 MB
Transfervolumen für den Monat 07/2013:            9.148,67 MB
Geschätztes Transfervolumen im Monat 07/2013:    13.505,18 MB
(Hochrechnung ohne Gewähr)

In Ihrem Paket ist monatlich unlimitiertes Transfervolumen inbegriffen.

Seems that we make the homeless PB'er the new home?

PS: I hope anyway that PowerBasic will come up again.

Quote from: Theo Gottwald on July 22, 2013, 08:10:17 AM
Whatever you choose, you will still be welcome in this Forum.
Tell me your choice.

Let me say that the overall traffic in our Forum here is a bit higher then normal (11 GB).

Quoteim folgenden finden Sie den Datentransfer Ihres Paketes it-berater.org:

Transfervolumen für den 21.07.2013:                 528,75 MB
Transfervolumen der Woche vom 15.07.2013:         3.369,43 MB
Transfervolumen für den Monat 07/2013:            9.148,67 MB
Geschätztes Transfervolumen im Monat 07/2013:    13.505,18 MB
(Hochrechnung ohne Gewähr)

In Ihrem Paket ist monatlich unlimitiertes Transfervolumen inbegriffen.

Seems that we make the homeless PB'er the new home?

PS: I hope anyway that PowerBasic will come up again.

Agreed.  Powerbasic does have a few features going for it.  One of them (the console compiler) is the useful TXT window, along with the Graphics windows. 

None of us have to be married to any particular language.  I have to use Java & Groovy at the office, but nobody can tell us what we're supposed to use for personal projects.  Aside from the absence of support for viewing objects in their debugger - something that I consider a standard feature - it isn't a bad tool.

Quote from: Theo
PS: I hope anyway that PowerBasic will come up again.

I always knew you would be the last one standing and responsible for turning off the lights. Just remember, pets should be loyal to their owners, not programmers to their vendors.

One of my customers emailed me asking about the PB web site. I didn't know.

Shortly afterwards he emailed again and said he got an email from Jum Bailey at PowerBasic and simply put, they are:

"moving locations / carrier / web site"

So it appears PowerBasic is still alive and well.

Quote
"moving locations / carrier / web site"

So it appears PowerBasic is still alive and well.

Shows what PB thinks of their customers giving them no warning especially being on thinICE as it is.

Unless Jim announces a 64 bit PowerBASIC, their future is toast.

On June 12th I emailed PB support if this is the end of PB. (And pointing out there were no beta releases since many months)

Vivian Zale replied stating...

QuoteThis is not the end of PB.  Just because we lost Captain Bob, the ship is not going down.  It has been very difficult with our leader gone.  We are struggling but still marching forward.   Research has left us behind without our leader and they are going through a restructure process to adapt.
I hope this answers your question about whether this is the end of PB.

@Chris B, they're alive but quite obviously not well.

Frankly, I'm very keen to see just a 32 bit beta. That would give me some assurance they were at least capable of ongoing development.

Quote"moving locations / carrier / web site"

It would seem then that nothing was learnt from the last fiasco making Jim Bailey incompetent. I should think that at least one other member of staff would have pointed out that a different approach be employed this time. Perhaps it went in one ear and out of the other - a classic symptom of incompetence. I have read all of Bailey's posts at the PowerBASIC forums and he has struck me as someone who is clueless. With Jim Bailey at the helm PowerBASIC's future is toast.

With Jim Bailey at the helm PowerBASIC's future is toast.

Unless Vivian knows how to program in handcrafted ASM, she should cut her loses and shut it down. I don't know anyone foolish enough to buy the company from her.

It's hard to match what I've seen with PowerBASIC, including recent events, with the pessimism going on here.

I've certainly never thought of PowerBASIC as a cash-cow, but I've always assumed that they've had a steady income, sufficient to stay afloat for quite some time now.  Further, I'm expecting more people to get disillusioned with the MS/.NET world and to find PowerBASIC a technically suitable alternative.  It doesn't seem to me that the future is so dim for PowerBASIC.

There is, of course, the need to get past Bob's loss and to get their company pursuing a clear technical path. And while under Bob's rule, customer focus wasn't a company strong point, my experience is that customer service has improved slightly in the last few months.

The glaring exception, of course, is the mystifying silence of PowerBASIC during these two outages. I can't find any excuse for the silence, so it does cast a shadow on whether the company has an effective leader at this point. 

It's hard to believe that the company existed today solely because of Bob's technical coding skills.  I expect that his role in the earlier years was far more coding-participatory than in more recent years. Running a business leaves little time for coding contributions, so I have to believe there is more employee technical depth than is being given credit here.

And finally, I'm having trouble with the 64bit compiler comments. From the forum responses I've seen, a few folks really really want one now, and most other folks are happy enough with the idea that one will be out eventually.  That's hardly a recipe for "toast".

I'm in more of a wait-and-see mood. I find it hard to embrace the doom-and-gloom message being sown here.

Gary, some very simple calculations - based on the downöload number you have for your freeware - will show you that PB can not and has never been a bussiness that was a cash cow. Possibly not even more then the hobby of a very dedicated programmer whoi left the ship.
Now think a moment. What would your wife do (with your site) if you leave the ship?
I believe they will switch to a cheaper internet company and continue to sell PB for a while.
After all we don't know what the future brings. My hope on new compilers from PB is rather small.

BUT: The current PB (10.03) is very stable, nearly bug free and it works as expected.
So we can use it as long as 32 bit software is going to run on any windows OS.

AND: The future may look dark, but it can change any day. There are even Rumors that the pope will cancel the celibacy.

Meanwhile we have a lot of discussions here in the forum about alternatives.

@John, I would like to know your opinion and technical experience about many things, but not about Powerbasic.
Why don't you try WINDEV? Whats your Opinion about Visual Studio?
Take this as a soft hint before action occurs.  ;D

QuoteI'm in more of a wait-and-see mood. I find it hard to embrace the doom-and-gloom message being sown here.

Would you use PowerBASIC for anything other than a hobby project based on what you know now?

Quote from: Theo@John, I would like to know your opinion and technical experience about many things, but not about Powerbasic.
Why don't you try WINDEV? Whats your Opinion about Visual Studio?

Sorry Theo, you're asking the wrong person about Windows direction and suggested tools. I'm a Linux guy and if it wasn't for O2 and SB on Windows, I wouldn't even bother with it.

BTW: You said you were hurting for cash so I posted the link to the free eval version of WinDEV so you can at least get started. That was your desire from what I got out of your post.

Quote from: David Roberts on July 23, 2013, 03:26:22 AMWith Jim Bailey at the helm PowerBASIC's future is toast.

We don't know where the power really lies at PowerBASIC Inc, nor what fate has recently thrown at them, so let's give Mr Bailey his chance,  if indeed he is still "in post". If he isn't, there is absolutely no reason to taint his reputation or prospects of employment with speculative abuse.

@John S, I know that you have had your issues with PowerBASIC Inc in the past. They do say that "revenge is a dish best served cold", so why not postpone your dance upon their grave? Personally, I'm hoping to see something viable emerge from the mists, though I'm not putting money on it.

@Chriss Boss, I'm with you in hoping  that all might yet work out well for PowerBASIC and its devotees. The point is, the face they turn to the outside world is - well, not a face, but an entirely different part of the anatomy. It grieves me that the judgement of whoever is running the show is so poor that no plausible statement has been put out by the company. Although I can conceive of possible legal reasons for it, they are not good reasons.

I avoid to mix affect and programming work.

From my perspective PowerBASIC has always been <one> of my provider and not the <only one>.
I have always been aware that Robert Zale was a single orchester man, with all the cards in one hand.
The only exception was the fiasco of PBDK (written by Philippe Monteil), because at this time Bob Zale didn't complete his transition from DOS to the Windows programming paradime.
And this is the reason that left him always behind, because he had first to learn and master the new technologies from Microsoft.

At the same time i teached myself from MSDN CD-ROM and the core SDK how to use the native Windows API, with the side effect of forcing me to understand a minimum of C to be able to translate the examples to PB.
At first i selected PowerBASIC to write my DLLs, because the syntax was the closest to my PDS 7.1 roots.
But very soon, it became obvious that if writing a DLL with PB was rather easy, it was totaly unproductive and very time consuming to write a large project with hundreds of windows.
That leads me to look around and search for the best solution to produce large project in the shortest delay.
On that aspect there is no comparison between WinDev and all the other tools i have tried.
Why WinDev is not perfect and p-code only, its screen builder is just the best around and you can prototype a project in a couple of hours, once you master the beast.
And best of all, it works like a charm with DLL(s) writen in C, C++, or PowerBASIC (for me the best choice because the syntax is almost the same).
It gives me the choice to write either procedural or OOP code, and even use or write .net assembly, and it works on 32-bit or on 64-bit (because WinDev itself is written in C++).

Now that i have learned how to translate my PB code to C/C++ and to produce 64-bit DLLs, i broke my chain and enjoy my liberty ;)

Garry

QuoteAnd finally, I'm having trouble with the 64bit compiler comments. From the forum responses I've seen, a few folks really really want one now, and most other folks are happy enough with the idea that one will be out eventually.  That's hardly a recipe for "toast".

Probably because most of the talented programmers posting in the old days on the PB's forum, have already left out the boat.

Just have a look at the quality of the examples posted more than 10 years ago, before the DDT corruption, and you will understand what i mean. Semen we miss you  :(

Quote from: Patrice Terrier on July 23, 2013, 11:00:55 AM... before the DDT corruption...

All change is corruption. It just depends where you started from. Inter faeces et urinam nascimur.

It is a corruption because it hides the novice of what is going on under the hood, and because the proprietary syntax being used is hard to translate into another language.

Despite the false alleguations of a few, SDK was not harder to learn than DDT, and as long as Windows would exist it will not lead you into a dead end, THIS HAS BEEN MY MOTO SINCE MANY YEARS, and the life (death) made my point right.

...

Patrice, anybody here knows some things PowerBasic could have made different in the past.
As a result the company would have had a better standing in the market. As i see it, it was
- from the financial standpoint - never something that really paid out for nobody.
If that would have been the case, somebody would like to buy the thing.
But as said - a few calculations based on download numbers and prices will show you that it was not a well going bussiness.

Having said this, we all know that good programmers need not to be good bussiness people.
Thats why programmers (like me) left only with their bussiness often struggle an only "get rich" in very seldom cases.
Often after they found someone to help manage their bussiness.
But of course such people already have well running bussinesses and do not interest to use their spare time for bussinesses that are not well running.

Quote from: Theo Gottwald on July 23, 2013, 12:03:46 PMHaving said this, we all know that good programmers need not to be good bussiness people.

Quite so, Theo, indeed I suspect that for most people with a skill, the skill becomes their world and business must take a wider perspective than this.

On the bright side, both successful and struggling/failing businesses create demand for skills. Recruitment and resourcing would be areas into which techies might "evolve", though they demand a high level of "people skills" too.

I personally think PB bring it upon themselves with a lack of communications. It takes less than 24hrs for DNS to replicate world wide. Why, I'm sure if Viv asked the forums, many would volunteer to assist even without compensations.

All it takes is one static link with a bit of information. Without that, we get grumpy and think negative thoughts. Business 101 = Communicate!

QuoteUnless Jim announces a 64 bit PowerBASIC, their future is toast.

I am not sure I agree with that. Even Microsoft is having huge issues with their own 64-bit products. Although they are threatening to remove the 32-bit compatibilty, I do not see that happening for quite a while.

What set PowerBasic a part from the other basic languages is that it had a significant number of professional programmers using it and would be part of the community.  All the others basic languages were 99.9% hobby programmers who generated few if any quality projects.  That difference is evaporating (or has already) for various reasons, but to the forefront is the percieved risk of the future of the language.  Bob's bedside manner was not good but he could get away with it because of his exceptional programming talent.  The current management has zero track record and can not get away with arrogant behavior toward the remaining customers.  The lack of a communicated direction and heads up on events like up coming website outages are devastating.

I agree that PowerBasic needs to make some big changes if it plans on prospering.

Yet, PowerBasic is like a diamond in the rough, with a tremendous potential they may not even recognize.

Bob Zale and I had a nice conversation on the phone, when I was writing an article about PowerBasic for an online magazine, and he mentioned a number of interesting things which made me feel he was very interested in new technologies. Bob was very interested in Windows 8 and Metro and even ARM.

Having been a long time BASIC programmer, I personally feel that the software industry has made development more complex and more prone to bloat, poor performance and bugs. PowerBasic's compiler offers a fresh change in such a world. It has been interesting since I have been writing a blog on my company web site about programming topics, including about PowerBasic, Windows 8 and Metro, to see some of the different big companies who have browsed my blogs. My blog has been visited a number of times (meaning more than just once) by the likes of Microsoft, Intel, HP, IBM and others. What is interesting is to see which articles they are checking out. For example some from IBM was checking out my articles about the problems with OOP. Someone from Microsoft and Intel have shown interest in my articles about Metro versus the desktop on Windows 8. The point is, that PowerBasic comes to software development from a much different approach than most and there are many advantages to this.

Quote from: Theo Gottwald on July 20, 2013, 09:37:07 PM
As i have just verified, the PB Forum seems to be down again.
Ok. Sometimes over the weekends they clean up stuff.
Lets see what happens next week.

Actually, we have moved to a bigger office and are having extreme difficulties in the transfer.  Support, and sales email are still working.

We expect the phone line issue to be fixed today.

We hope to have the website back up in the next day (or 2 - I hope not).  With an on-site IT team beginning soon, I can expect the email troubles with the forums to go away.

Expect a new beta forum, and we will be needing testers, so watch for the postings when the website comes up.

Believe me, this is far more frustrating than you can expect for me.

Thank all PB coders for your loyalty and concern.  PB is not going to the wind, but quite differently, growing.

Jim Bailey
PowerBASIC Staff

Good to here Jim...

Thanks for the information Jim.

In the future, I think I speak the sentiments of many here, please give the community a heads up before such an "moving" event in the future.  Our stress levels will then not be accentuated! I fully understand the hassles having just had a major client go through the same and they were offline for a few days too. 

Jim,

The lack of communication and a clear vision of the forthcoming of PB's development status, is a big mistake for the people who have to make a strategic choice for their own future.

Most will give you a second chance, but i urge you to stop the policy of keeping your customers into the dark, because they are making your living.

One can only imagine the cost to the customer base every time PowerBASIC does the disappearing act. Larger office? You have to be kidding me. I would be surprised if PB generated enough revenue to pay Jim last month. I got off the PB bus long ago when I saw no change in its misguided direction. As far as I'm concerned, PowerBASIC is now a hobby language with a risk factor too high to be used for anything else.

Exactly Patrice!  Well said!

One thing PB might do is to have a mirror site that does not go down, one which might serve as a PR communications portal during such events as moving.  Such would definitely give all of us in the community a real sense of the direction Jim says regarding PB's growth.

Thanks for the update Jim - Good to hear some news.

As a client trying to stay loyal, but sitting on the barbed wire fence, this is not a good reference. A move is always disruptive. To plan a web site move however, is not brain surgery and a bit of pre-planning will go a long way, even if it means having a temporary site hosted somewhere else during the move.

http://www.sqlitening.com/support/index.php?topic=9150.0

Quote
Actually we moved into a new shop, and have more resources to help us out with.  The website may be down for another day or 2, and the phone is in the process of switching carriers, possibly going voip.  Sorry for any difficulty, we are trying to get this up as fast as possible.

Our email server is part of the installation, so we have to deal with this on a email-by-email basis.

When our servers are 100% up we will be doing some more sales, so keep checking in!

Thank you,

Jim Bailey
PowerBASIC Staff

Restarting the beta forum will be the acid test. The lack of new builds is what has worried me. I have no plans to switch to another compiler. If PB disappears (God forbid), I will abandon programming. I have not the slightest interest in .NET, Mac or Linux, and much less in open source software. Regarding the 64-bit compiler, although I don't need it right now, I think that PB needs to write one, eventually, not only because some PBers need it, but because many prospective buyers may look elsewhere if there is not 64-bit support.

Good news Jim but how many people have already been forced to seriously consider their position.

Please, next time, consider the possibility that things may not run smoothly and manage transition accordingly.

No point in spelling it out more than this.

Good luck with the new arrangements.

I think the best solution is for Vivian to contract Jose to help them through this mess and release the source to him. Everyone wins under that scenario.

Quote from: John Spikowski on July 23, 2013, 09:04:38 PM
I think the best solution is for Vivian to contract Jose to help them through this mess and release the source to him. Everyone wins under that scenario.

Hear, hear!

I can't code in assembler.

With all my respect for José, he is not an asm guru nor the messiah...

added: cross posting with josé ;)

I think the best solution is for Vivian to contract José Roca & Charles Pegge to help them through this mess and release the source to them. Everyone wins under that scenario.

If they can afford it, contract Patrice to do their IDE/GUI designer.

I'm sure if Bob could read this he would reply with his approval.

Given that Bob was never  very open about development issues, I don't know who anyone can assume the state of PB's programming power. I do know that they have never been in a hurry to release new products until they were substantially ready. Perhaps a lesson even MS could learn from.

There are also the worst case.

As a German customer, I would have liked at least a reference to powerbasic.de. The German PB partner was not informed. This is really bad.

I still hope...

I wonder if all this caught the PB staff by surprise just as it did us.  I find it a little hard to believe they would just shut down and move without some preliminary explanation.  These aren't foolish people.

It could be that they had a smooth transition planned and it went wrong.  That can happen.  I'm sure everyone here has had a plan fail.

We probably should wait to find out what really happened before we start pointing out their thoughtlessness.

Barry

I would probably go on using PB/Win 10 for some time without further updates. If the resource of the forum disappeared I would discontinue its use far more quickly. I don't think I'm alone in thinking like this and so those in charge now would be wise to consider this before they take the site down without warning or explanation.

QuoteIt could be that they had a smooth transition planned and it went wrong.  That can happen.  I'm sure everyone here has had a plan fail.

PowerBASIC earned the benefit of the doubt when the first time the site was down for days. (excuse: moving, Bob passing, new management, ...) With little or no activity from the home team (explanation why they are acting like air heads, keeping everyone in the dark about PB's future and who is running the show) they pull the same FU (move, take the site down again and Jim confesses being confused) and expect everyone to tap their loyalty bag and turn the other cheek. Sorry, they are in business and take people's money. There is a commitment a company should make to their customers that they stand behind their products and provide the stability and support free software isn't obligated to provide. PowerBASIC has failed on all fronts and is pushing the envelope by asking their customers to understand.

John,

PowerBasic is known for its compilers...  What matters is whether my compiled programs work and whether I am able to create a program using the available compilers.  I pay for the compilers. I can at best complaint about the quality of the compiled code and nothing else.

The forums and the web-site is free and I dont pay for it.  I dont need them to make my compilers work.  True, there exists helpful folks to sort out some technical issues but that is the point of a good community.  So please do not go on as though PB committed some taboo or sacrilege and PB customers should ditch it etc. 

We are not running PB Operations nor do we understand their operational model; so we cant simply throw some words in the air about how they should behave.  True, things can be better but I have seen products which does not work from Day one and simply not workable.  We just get on with what is possible at that time.

I have modified and used ScriptBasic for the last decade or so.  But that does not mean it can replace PowerBasic.  For me SB is a tool and so is PB and in my eyes PB is far better for the kind of products that I create. 

PowerBasic is the best programming environment that I have used in the last 24 years or so.  I will stick to it and I believe that the folks at PB are better equipped to deal with their operational issues than me.  I would rather let them in peace to sort their issues instead of passing leud comments on how to run their business.  My interest is the tools that they provide and its quality and nothing else. 

The main problem is that on the product page the forum page is embedded.

The compiler we have. Yes.
But the community are deprived of important tools.
The intergrated forum and the online resources are important purchase decision.

Hi fellows! Considering the low input rate from only a few of us in the PB forums lately, it's surprising how many negative reactions a couple of days downtime causes. As I have understood it, a .05 update is lurking around the corner, so just sit down in the boat and don't worry - Bob has built a stabile ground for PB to stand on and I'm sure it will be around for many years to come.

I have been lurking waiting out the forums return but I find it time to post.

[rant]
I am, in some ways, shocked by some of the comments I've read thus far.  Some of the people here are SO negative it's scary.  I interpret it as anti-PowerBASIC-ism although not sure if that's the intention.   For those with the negativity... DON"T USE THE PRODUCT.  There are many of us, professional level programmers, that know what we are doing that like and want the product for what it does.

Sure the staff could have informed us of the outage, but to cut them some slack, I have never, EVER, received a notification from a vendor that they shut down shop and moved and I do IT professionally for a living.  Not one, and I deal with hundreds of vendors.  The only reason this is even an issue for some is they have an extremely active Forum and tight-knit community so the silence is deadening.  It goes to prove the user based strength when interruptions happen.

I've always been told if you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything.  Personal opinions aside, if you don't like a product don't post spammy messages about it... perform a PROFESSIONAL level review.  A legit review will be better received than spewing hate messages.  Posters like that just look like a weed in a garden.
[/rant]

Quote from: George Bleck on July 24, 2013, 02:05:05 PMI interpret it as anti-PowerBASIC-ism although not sure if that's the intention. 

PowerBASIC is a supplier, George, not a religion. People are entitled to their opinions and the level of service which they believe is appropriate. Of course people with a grudge will jump in with both feet, that is to be expected, sadly. The most telling feature of the current episode is that a number of people were quite prepared to believe that the company had hit a wall.  Unfortunately, nothing that has happened in the last few days has negated that view, and despite Jim Bailey's update, only the re-emergence, unscathed,  of PowerBASIC's online presence, followed by a timely update as mentioned by Borje will blow those fears and doubts away for the sceptics among us.

I'm not knocking the products, but I would certainly like the company to stop self-harming, apart from other considerations my ego prefers to be associated with success!

But you bought a product and you have a product, transaction complete and supplier has fulfilled their duty.  The freebies that PowerBASIC offers (forum, many of the simple tech support Q's)  are just that... FREEBIES.

Has anyone contacted PowerBASIC for a paid support call since the down time?  THAT is what matters.  From Jim's port it seems sales and support contacts are still working.  THAT'S what we pay for.

It's not religion, I just don't see as you see where PowerBASIC is not supporting their requirements.

I've been getting more work done since the forum has been down.  Wrote an install program for some of my PowerBASIC work related apps.  Used PB6.

Hey, John(S),

I'm sorry, but I don't know your background, other than what I've read in this thread.

But given your comment:

QuoteI got off the PB bus long ago ...

I'm mystified why you're participating in a thread about PB, a product you've haven't used in a "long" time, particularly when your comments are all negative. It seems like you're still on the bus in some way or another.  When I soured on MS for dropping VB6, I don't recall going online at MS forums and bad-mouthing them - I actually took another bus.

It feels like there's been an event in the past that's soured you on PB?  Have I missed a history that everyone else here seems to know about?

... went looking to try and answer the question myself. John, I found this post of yours from 2008:

QuoteI think PowerBASIC is at the end of it's useful life cycle and only the loyal and too lazy to change will continue to use it.

I can't find the original conflict (I'm assuming there was one?), but it's certainly a long-standing grudge!

Count me in as loyal and lazy!  ;D

Börge's points are spot on, ditto for George and Chris.  Many folks here probably realize that some of the prime contributors here have been directly involved in beta with PowerBASIC for many, many years.  While they could not tell you any future direction because NDAs prevent that, experience over many product version developments has always led to additions which made the PB user tent larger. Never were all the resources dedicated to any one area, but advances and improvements were made in many areas that various segments of the user community needed   Also updates as well as new version and new product  betas usually overlapped, so to assume that such is not so any more could be, well, terribly naive.

Some have pointed out that it will take time to get a handle on Bob's source code, in so many words, and then go forward.  If you have ever written an enterprise size system or an extensive user tool set, you know this is not even a simple task.  Also  the no vaporware policy has not been discarded in favor of promises of this and that, even though Jim Bailey and others have indicated plans regarding 64 bit compilers exist without trying to go further.  So for 64bit development, like where development is, what it will be, etc., those misconceptions can not be birthed from any official source. 

That said, moving forward. growing a larger staff compliment, getting good team synergy, takes time and a lot of adjustment --- which is really what we've seen.  The main problem here, is there was not advanced  PR that kept the user community informed, because those that participate are a tight knit group in many ways,  and providing an alternate mirror site, at least until the moved IT and telephone setups were ready.  Even so, right now I'd say being pro-PB helps much more in the long run,  while maybe needing in some cases to use another tool in the interim,  is significantly, better to promote advances  than airing personal grievances for some past situation.   Such personal rehashes are not constructive in the community at large.  If there is a serious concern, e-mail Jim Bailey and remain patient.  He does respond.   But don't hold your breath if a suggested new direction is not taken, even if the logic of such appears to be without fault.  The brand, according to forum posts, is carrying out Bob's previously planned directions.   Bob did listen, did consider and in many cases decided to do something that way or in a way that aided more of us than we individually may have originally considered.  I like many here hope we many come to see some of that carried forward when the reorganizing days bear fruit.

Just talked to Jim Bailey on the phone and they are having ISP and phone problems and hope to be up tonight.  The company is expanding!

Like some of the others here I'm a little taken back by the negative comments. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and you are most certainly free to leave so why spend your time bitching about it. I just don't get why some of you are hanging on for the sake of complaining...

To be honest it's puzzling and humorous at how much of your time you spend doing this... It's almost like you expect something to come from all your complaining... ?!

LOL

Ok, because they are very few that could take over Bob's work.

The good question to ask is:

What is the name of the guy in charge of writing the code now?  ::)

From that name we could figure if there is a future or not.

...

QuoteWhat is the name of the guy in charge of writing the code now?

I would say Fred. He is the author of PB and has reported an increase in sales over the last 6 months.

For those not aware of it, Frederic Laboureur is the name of the french developper who write PureBasic.

Nothing related to PowerBasic of course, and the two languages couldn't be compared (my opinion).

I was thinking more to the comeback of THIII .

...

John, looks like you are worried by the possibility that PowerBASIC has a future. Please, stop trolling.

I collected the HISTORY since v.10. For Jim Dunn :) and others.
May be not complete, but at least some information..

Quote
10.4
- Potential miscalculation of XPRINT PREVIEW physical margins.
- IDE: Incorrect display of some international characters.
- Improved scaling of Print Preview text.
- Inaccuracy resizing Graphic controls.
- IDE: Substantial enhancement of Debug Step speed.
- MSGBOX error in a program with no other unicode variables, functions...
- Array Scan errors with certain wide unicode strings.
- Array Sort errors with certain wide unicode strings.
- Errors referencing a wide function using type id's (Call Function$$)
- Errors inheriting the IPowerTime interface.
- IDE: Side effects from certain debugging commands.
- FONT END generates no errors.
- Improvements to XPRINT with a page range.
- IDE: Incorrect display of some international characters.
- IDE: Improvement in debugger stepping.
- UNWRAP$ error with certain short strings.
- Improved error codes for duplicate CallBack name definition.
- BUILD$() function errors using wide unicode parameters.
- TXT.WINDOW() now auto-closes any existing text window.
- Calculation errors using SELECT CASE CONST$$.
- Improved signature validation of linked procedures.
- Occasional GPF with RESUME use in an extracted (unreferenced) procedure.


10.3

- Thread functions/methods defaulted to an incorrect FPU control word.
- Minor changes to the help file
- IDE syntax coloring was disabled when "Use Syntax Color when printing" was not selected and "No Case Change" was selected. This has been fixed.

- Errors with DISPLAY BROWSE in Unicode mode are fixed.
- XPRINT PREVIEW with escapement could be clipped in error and did not allow overwrite of printed items. Both of these issues have been resolved.
- DIR$() now masks system errors.
- DEBUG alignment errors with multi-line macros have been fixed.
- GRAPHIC GET LOC and GRAPHIC SET LOC now only support Graphic Windows. For Graphic Controls use CONTROL GET LOC and CONTROL SET LOC.

- Fixed errors using a non-object parameter with a Thread Object.
- Errors using some forms of Line Input# have been resolved.

10.2

- Errors calculating reverse operators in DWord expressions have been fixed.
- Resolved an error with PowerTime.TimeString for one hour after noon and midnight.

- IPowerTime.NewTime incorrect errors have been fixed.
- Incorrect parentheses counting of CODEPTR as a parameter have been resolved.

- ASMDATA DW now accepts signed values.
- Updated Keyword lists in the IDE.
- Minor changes in the help file.

- Fixed certain compound object reference errors in an SLL.
- Errors executing IDISPINFO methods have been resolved.
- Errors compiling certain rare quad integer literals no longer occur.

- Resolved an issue with GRAPHIC SET VIEW incorrectly setting vertical coordinates in certain instances.
- Errors executing VARIANT$() and VARIANT$$() have been fixed.
- Record length errors with certain random access files have been fixed.
- Fixed an issue where certain uses of EVENT SOURCE caused a compile time error.
- SETATTR no longer causes a GPF when a disk error occurs.
- Certain international characters where not displaying correctly in the IDE have been fixed.
- IDE Close All Files issue on Windows 98 have been resolved.

10.1

- CLIP$ has been revised to remove restrictions.
- Code alignment updates.
- COMMON DIALOGS (DISPLAY) have corrected Ansi/Unicode access.
- IDE Close All Files now correctly closes all tabs/files.

- Certain uses of Graphic Set Pixel required Graphic Redraw to display have been resolved.
- Errors with compiling certain CONTROL ADD "CustomControl" statements have been fixed.

- Mask variable assignment expressions may contain any combination of LongInt and DWord values without error. Operators may include +, -, AND, OR, XOR.
- There is a dramatic improvement of execution speed in many/most DWord expressions.

- ARRAY SCAN errors using WSTRINGZ strings is now fixed.
- Resolved an issue using INPUT #n, x$$ with CHR=WIDE.
- GETATTR errors on Win95/Win98 or using #OPTION ANSIAPI are fixed.
- PATHSCAN$ errors on Win95/Win98 or using #OPTION ANSIAPI are fixed.
- Errors with certain forms of LINE INPUT# are now fixed.
- GETATTR() now generates the correct error value.
- ISFOLDER errors on Win95/Win98 or using #OPTION ANSIAPI have been fixed.
- Fixed a compilation error using CODEPTR() in certain boolean expressions.
- An error with #COMPILER and minor revisions included has been fixed.
- Fixed an issue with Breakpoint errors when debugging a Prefix Block.
- DIALOG NEW PIXES now positions the dialog correctly when the dialog is larger than the screen and no a x and y location is specified.
- ASM LABEL: can now use either ' or ; to add a remark.

- LISTVIEW SORT errors when used with the NUMERIC option.
- TYPE SET statement has revised documentation.
- PowerTime.DateDiff now reports invalid parameters through OBJRESULT.
- PowerTime.TimeDiff now reports invalid parameters through OBJRESULT.
- PowerTime.NewDate now reports invalid parameters through OBJRESULT.
- PowerTime.NewTime now reports invalid parameters through OBJRESULT.
- Compiler error code 639 added: TYPE variable expected


10.0

New Statements and Functions:
- VARIANT$(BYTE, VrntVar) function returns the contents of a Variant as a ANSI byte
  string. This result can be assigned to an ANSI string variable or a User-Defined Type.

Changes to existing Statements and Functions:
- Improved #RESOURCE error checking at compilation.
- FOR/EACH variables are now supported in any scope.
- Fixed errors when calling DIALOG GET CLIENT or DIALOG GET CLIENT with a non-existent
  dialog handle.
- Resolved an issue where LISTVIEW SET HEADER displayed text incorrectly.
- EOF() function now recognizes a soft eof character.
- SLL errors involving the use of an alias name have been fixed.
- Side effects from GRAPHIC COLOR under unusual circumstances has been resolved.
- Errors with PowerTime.DayOfWeekString and PowerTime.DateStringLong in certain locales
  has been fixed.
- PowerTime.TimeDiff has been updated to return the number of Days differnt between
  the two PowerTime objects.
- PowerTime.DateStringLong no longer generates a leading space in some locales.
- Fixed and issue with PowerTime.DateStringLong generating a trailing nul character.
- Fixed issues with LPRINT ATTACH not working correctly in all situations.
- Resolved errors linking Dispatch and private Classes in an SLL.
- Improved Graphic printing with Clear Type enabled.
- Fixed an issue with ClipBoard Get Text and ClipBoard Set Text on Windows 98.
- Syntax erros with GRAPHIC STRETCH PAGE and XPRINT STRETCH PAGE have been corrected.
- Errors with GRAPHIC INPUT using an array variable as a parameter have been fixed.
- Errors when using XPRINT POS(), XPRINT SPC(), XPRINT TAB(), and XPRINT (, column)
  as the first statement on a page have been corrected.
- Resolved an error that caused CONTROL SET FOCUS to be ineffective when called from
  wm_initdialog.
- VARIANTVT() errors with object parameters have been resolved.
- Corrected errors with USING$() with certain unusual string mask parameters.
- VARIANT$ and VARIANT$$ used to return strings based on the contents of the variant.
  VARIANT$ now assumes the contents of the variant is a wide Unicode string and converts
  it to a ANSI string. VARIANT$$ assumes the contents of the variant is a wide Unicode
  string and returns the contents directly as a wide Unicode string.
  VARIANT$(BYTE, VrntVar) always returns the contents as an ANSI byte string. This
  result can be assigned to an ANSI string variable or a User-Defined Type.
- ASMDATA:DW did now supports the full data size.
- Improved #RESOURCE error checking at compilation.
- Fixed errors with PARSE to wide unicode strings.
- CSET/LSET/RSET errors with wide fixed strings have been resolved.
- Fixed Array Scan errors with UDT array and collate option.
- LISTBOX/COMBOBOX FIND errors on Win98 have been fixed.
- Fixed an error using DIR$() on Win98.

Additional changes:
- Compiler error code 461 changed: INSTANCE arrays must be declared. INSTANCE arrays
  must be declared before any CLASS code.
- Suppress name clashes with import functions in an SLL.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     IDE
                                     ===
- Fixed an issue with fonts appearing clipped if Windows font smoothing (e.g., ClearType)
  was enabled.
- In "single instance" mode, trying to launch a second IDE will cause its
  command line (if any) to be passed to the original IDE. So, the original IDE
  will load any files that would have been loaded in a second instance.
- Variable Watcher properly restores the sizes of its listview columns.
- The display bounds checker fully supports the use of multiple monitors.
  The IDE will re-open on the appropriate display.
- Fixed Code Finder handling of PROPERTY SET. The Type information for PROPERTY
  now distinguishes between PROPERTY GET and PROPERTY SET.
- The colors of the Output Window match better with Windows Themes.
- Saving backup files with timestamps uses the correct timestamp again.
- Double-click in Variable Watcher is ignored for empty rows. Evaluate Variable is
  enabled only if there is a symbol name at the caret.
- The last specified file path is selected as the default path regardless of how the
  last file was loaded.
- Backups may now be done to a specified directory. The IDE will attempt to create
  the directory if it does not already exist. The default setting is ".\", the path
  of the saved file.
- Added Shift+Delete as "Cut" key.
- Ctrl+F4 added as "Close File" key.
- Copying to the clipboard is enabled while debugging, if appropriate.
- Insert File is disabled while debugging.
- Files loaded by virtue of being stepped into while debugging are adjusted to match
  their names on disk, to avoid undesirable case conversion.
- PBForms can be launched from PBEdit even if no files are loaded.
- Adjustments to Options / Fonts handling for proper font listing under Win9x.
- Compiler options now has a checkbox to specify if a .PBR file should be created
  when compiling an .RC file.
- File options now has a checkbox to select which files are included when saving
  a project.
- General options now has a check to select whether to display the IDE status bar.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     COM Browser
                                     ===========
- Tools | Options dialog box now disables the OK button and allows the Cancel button to
  be used when the Interface Prefix textbox is null.
- Added a fix for interfaces that have an incorrect inheritance.

I think we're having two different conversations here, with folks talking (or writing, as the case may be) across one another. What I find to be most interesting are those who claim simply that they've purchased a product, and as long as that product continues to work then why should anyone have an issue with "free" resources like a website. Frankly, I see that as an outmoded perspective on the business of software.

The software business is a service business.

The software itself is an important part of that business, of course, but it is not the only part. In the 21st century, that means a working website were customers can download updates, obtain information about your products and even order them. It also means providing a means for you to communicate with your customers both privately and publically, and if they choose, amongst themselves. That is not a "freebie", it is an essential part of providing excellent service for the people who depend on your software to get their work (or play) done. If you think of a website and forum as some kind of vestigial tail on a software business, then simply stated, your thinking is wrong.

As to this specific situation, I'll just say as someone who's been involved with the coding, the site administration and some of the business aspects of software for a lot of years now, there is absolutely no situation where I would consider it acceptable for our site (or any business site) to go dark for days on end. At the very best, it demonstrates a complete lack of planning and technical acumen by the staff responsible. It is indeed possible to move offices, whether it is down the street or across the country, with minimal or no downtime, even if your primary servers are in-house. But of course, you need to plan and coordinate that move, and have contingency plans in place if something does go wrong. That's also part of being a responsible business in service to your customers, and frankly, just good business sense.

If the reason they've been down for so long was because of a DDoS attack or something of that nature, then I would say that it's reasonable to cut them some slack. But this seems to be an unforced error on their part, and I think some criticism is justified, particularly since this is not the first time that this sort of thing has happened. While some of you who have been customers for many years are understandably giving them the benefit of the doubt, you also need to accept that you are not the future of the company. The future is new customers, new developers who learn to appreciate the same things you do about the language. And if you were that new developer who heard good things about PowerBasic and found the website down for days without explanation, what would you think? Would you risk your reputation, and even your career, recommending a solution to your company when the software vendor cannot even maintain basic web services for their own customers? Where you couldn't even order the product online if you wanted to?

For those of you who disagree with the criticism, I would point out that this is not the worst thing that can happen to a business. In many cases, people are most critical when they have a vested interest in the outcome. They are vocal in their opposition or express their disappointment because they want the company to succeed and continue to be able to provide the product and services that they have grown to depend on. When a business needs to be truly concerned is not when customers are unhappy and complaining; it's when no one is complaining because they're past caring and have moved on.

Quote
John, looks like you are worried by the possibility that PowerBASIC has a future. Please, stop trolling.

Bob is gone. I'm (and everyone else) no longer required by law to only speak about PowerBASIC in a reverent way and be thankful Bob took a moment of his time to respond to our silly questions. I thought we were having a debate about the future of PowerBASIC and didn't realize the full scope of the rules. I guess I tilted out and now the forum Troll.

Mike,

I fully agree with all your comments.

Even if some are groupies, we are first customers.

As i said many years ago to Mr. Zale:  you made us duke, but who made you king ;)

...

I have working development tools create 32-bit applications: PB/CC and PB/Win.

I have at least peer support from multiple sources.

I am currently planning on needing these things for a couple years.

As long as a32-bit applications live a couple years more, I'm happy as a camel on Wednesday.

Those who have to think ahead more than a couple of years may not be so happy.

MCM

Welcome Michael!

Your take on things is refreshing and informative with a touch of wit and honestly that is your signature. You may need to oil that armor and sharpen the sword as the troops are restless and hungry and taking no prisoners.

Quote from: John Spikowski on July 24, 2013, 07:39:51 PM

Quote
John, looks like you are worried by the possibility that PowerBASIC has a future. Please, stop trolling.

Bob is gone. I'm (and everyone else) no longer required by law to only speak about PowerBASIC in a reverent way and be thankful Bob took a moment of his time to respond to our silly questions. I thought we were having a debate about the future of PowerBASIC and didn't realize the full scope of the rules. I guess I tilted out and now the forum Troll.

Some of us are having a debate about the future of PowerBASIC. You're just trying to discourage everybody. Apparently, Bob's death is not enough to you, you would also like to destroy his legacy. Which interest can you have in the future of PowerBASIC if you have said that you don't use it?

QuoteYou're just trying to discourage everybody. Apparently, Bob's death is not enough to you, you would also like to destroy his legacy.

Bob thought he owned the BASIC market and no one was as smart as him to build a BASIC compiler worth using. He was greedy with an ego as large he was physically. I think it will come out in the end that Bob's homemade assembler is impossible to use by anyone other than him. Bob proved only one thing, you can take it with you.

While PB struggles to find itself, I released ScriptBasic 2.2 for beta on multiple Linux platforms and Windows and working with Charles on enhancing the Windows version of SB. I also ported two BASIC translators and two interpreters to Android Linux and compiling native on the device with gcc C/C++. Does that sound like all I have to do with my spare time is be a troll on the JRS forum? 

I will NOT comment again on anything related to PowerBASIC or it's author. There are more than enough past users that can pick up where I left off.

José, I think the word you're looking for there is schadenfreude and I'd agree, there does seem to be some of that. However, I think for most folks it's simply the discomfort of feeling left in the dark with no clear understanding of what's happening now, along with the lack of any clearly articulated plans for the future.

Note I'm not talking about pushing vaporware here, I'm talking about a roadmap that defines some specific plans for where things are going with the language and a general timeframe in which they would like to accomplish them (with the acknowledgement that nothing is set in stone). I'd also suggest that they publically discuss the steps that they're going to take to ensure that they don't completely fall off the grid again. If they did this, I suspect it would put an end to much of the hand-wringing that has been going on.

The forum is offline. For a day goes something like this once through as a worst case.
But five days? What is this? What are the reasons?

The developers are worried if you were dependent on the forum and the support.

Anybody know where Steve Rossel went ?

Support quality was never the same when he left.

Quote from: Michael Mattias on July 24, 2013, 08:30:11 PM
I have working development tools create 32-bit applications: PB/CC and PB/Win.

I have at least peer support from multiple sources.

I am currently planning on needing these things for a couple years.

As long as a32-bit applications live a couple years more, I'm happy as a camel on Wednesday.

Those who have to think ahead more than a couple of years may not be so happy.

MCM

64 bit systems are just 32 bit systems that are twice as wide. Anyone who thinks 64 is superior to 32 is just plain in ignorance of how machine architecture works. Yes, it is speedier. Yes, it does work with a wider data path. But, for the most part, 32 bit applications will probably run just as fast as 64 bit applications due to architecture.

CAPTCHA does not work for me and my eyesight, ...

Guy--

Steve Rossel had the opportunity to retire earlier to spend more time with his kids and he could not let pass it up.

...

QuoteAnybody know where Steve Rossel went ?

Support quality was never the same when he left

Actually it was never the same after Dave Navarro and Lance Edmonds left.

MCM

Just noticed...

It's pretty cool to be identified as a 'newbie!' 

Quote64 bit systems are just 32 bit systems that are twice as wide. Anyone who thinks 64 is superior to 32 is just plain in ignorance of how machine architecture works. Yes, it is speedier. Yes, it does work with a wider data path. But, for the most part, 32 bit applications will probably run just as fast as 64 bit applications due to architecture.

Taking ScriptBasic from 32 bit to 64 bit was a gcc compiler switch. Advantage of being based on ANSI/ISO C and the standard ALL C compilers must adhere to if they want to be classified as a compiler.

Quote from: Colin Glenn on July 24, 2013, 11:00:03 PM
64 bit systems are just 32 bit systems that are twice as wide. Anyone who thinks 64 is superior to 32 is just plain in ignorance of how machine architecture works. Yes, it is speedier. Yes, it does work with a wider data path. But, for the most part, 32 bit applications will probably run just as fast as 64 bit applications due to architecture.

This is going off topic, but that really depends on the application. If you're talking about end-user desktop type business applications, then you're right, 64-bit isn't going to provide a significant performance improvement. Those types of programs don't usually require large amounts of memory or other system resources and they tend to be keyboard bound (i.e.: they spend most of their time just waiting for the user to do something with the keyboard or mouse). On the other hand, if you're talking about a service, or something that performs very computationally expensive operations (e.g.: high-end graphics, complex data modeling, etc.) that's when 64-bit support becomes important.

Quote from: Bernhard Fomm on July 24, 2013, 10:18:53 PM
The forum is offline.

Once upon a time a software called PowerBasic OFFline Search was created for days like these (actually mostly for those of us who had slow and expensive pay-per-minute connections, but anyway..). A bit old and outdated now, but together with Google it can hopefully help PB'ers get by until the PB forums are up and running again. And then there are these fine forums provided by José, of course. :)

Sure. There are always ways. Not only the forum back online.

Quote from: Patrice Terrier on July 24, 2013, 11:11:25 PM
Guy--

Steve Rossel had the opportunity to retire earlier to spend more time with his kids and he could not let pass it up.

...

Steve was not that old ???

Most of us old PB programmers could have been his father !

Mike,

Roadmaps can be a sales tool and any competition will know where you are going too ... if they think it is valid.  Roadmaps can also be a way to hedge sales, like MS and others have done for years, but delivered the goods much later.   However PB did say, in so many words,  Bob left plans that go far into the future, so you can safely bet those have internal and quite likely other private discussions. We do know 64 bit is on the table.  We also know that PB must look at the changing market and make decisions based on resources like any other company.  But I would not hold my breath for roadmaps, they have been requested many times before.  Planning on a software development roadmap is risky at best IMO.  CPUs do far better at meeting  roadmaps . LOL

Borje,

QuoteOnce upon a time a software called PowerBasic OFFline Search was created for days like these

And exactly the reason gbThreads was written.  I've been happily doing forum searches the last few days, using the offline. current thread files that I download regularly.  Hasn't everyone?  ;D

Some of the comments here and in the other thread have surprised me, as they are coming from people older than me that should know better.  Whether somebody liked Bob or not and had a beef with him is now irrelevant, as Bob is no longer here.  Whatever negative feelings somebody may have had for Bob should NOT be transferred to Jim or anybody else at PB, they do not deserve it.

With the way Bob "ran things", I feel pretty safe in saying the person now in charge, is who he thought should be in charge.  Jim said (paraphrasing from memory), that he is an analyst, a programmer and a teacher and that some of the issues he has had to deal with are not in his realm of expertise.  Perhaps Bob saw something in Jim, that Jim does not yet see in himself, but Jim is where he is, because it is what Bob wanted.  Has Jim stumbled?  Yes, and he openly admitted it.  He has also hired people to handle the things that he said were not his strengths.  That is the right thing to do and he is doing what he can to make sure these issues do not arise again.

PB has an "Inc." in its company name.  Jim does have people to answer to, unlike somebody working from home who turns out a free scripting BASIC that nobody uses.  This is the second move for PB that I am aware of.  After an initial downsizing to regroup and plan for the future, PB Inc, is now growing again and expanding.  Again, the right thing to do, and what any rational person would do under the circumstances. 

PB has moved and they are having phone problems and internet problems.  This is NOT uncommon in Florida, and it happens to many businesses in Florida when they move.

Quote from: Colin Glenn on July 24, 2013, 11:00:03 PM
64 bit systems are just 32 bit systems that are twice as wide. Anyone who thinks 64 is superior to 32 is just plain in ignorance of how machine architecture works. Yes, it is speedier. Yes, it does work with a wider data path. But, for the most part, 32 bit applications will probably run just as fast as 64 bit applications due to architecture.

Comments like this show a lack of understanding of processor architecture.  "Twice as wide" is just as disingenuous as those who say the only benefit is "access to more RAM".  I outlined the key benefits here (http://www.jose.it-berater.org/smfforum/index.php?topic=4708.msg18495#msg18495).  For example, GPR space is quadrupled, not doubled.  PB still does not take proper advantage of SSE because it needs to run on grossly archaic 32-bit CPUs.  Although SSE is itself getting old, there is ZERO excuse for the 64-bit version of PB not fully taking advantage of the SSE instructions as every 64-bit processor will support it.  If you are dealing with games, graphics, video or audio processing, 64-bit is a must.  Even many server applications need 64-bit for the RAM advantages.  32-bit systems have not been sold in years and the majority of Windows 7 systems on store shelves came with the 64-bit version installed.  However, the lack of multi-platform support is just as, if not more so, detrimental to the future of any compiler than what the lack of 64-bit support is.

Quote from: Guy Dombrowski on July 24, 2013, 10:48:29 PM
Anybody know where Steve Rossel went ?

Back in February, Jim told me that Steve was now an off site programmer.

Quote from: Patrice Terrier on July 24, 2013, 07:11:52 PM
I was thinking more to the comeback of THIII .

IBasic died after TGH3 bought it and found he was in over his head and did not have the talent or skill to maintain a programming language.  He then abandoned his users and the product and he simply left with no notice.  Not to mention all the people who placed orders and never received the products they paid for.  That would be the death of PB, a fate which PB does NOT deserve.

Cool beans!  The PowerBASIC forum is back online!

Why are you so fast? I was going to annouce it! :)

QuoteSteve was not that old ???
Most of us old PB programmers could have been his father !

Guy--

Steve is 45.

Jim--

He is a real person, and lurking this forum from time to time.

Quote from: Patrice Terrier on July 25, 2013, 08:53:58 AM

QuoteSteve was not that old ???
Most of us old PB programmers could have been his father !

Guy--

Steve is 45.

Patrice--

And I am 73

@Gary, thats why i asked you to regularly make Offline Backup of the PB Forum.
Soon I'd had asked you to give me the most updated copies.

But well now lets see if there has something changed.

QuoteOur website was only supposed to be down for no more than 2 hours last Saturday.

Major issues with our new ISP ensued, and they did not have us on priority, especially through the weekend.

It took me to go to their main HQ - big trip - to get actions finished.

Our phones are up, website normalized, and with that the last action is to get our mail server (for the forums, feedback, etc...) completed.

I do regretfully apologize for any inconvenience, and will next time have the foresight to post at least a week in advance for any changes or service to be made.

There has been a lot of discussion on other fora regarding PB. We have moved into a larger area, and have acquired more personnel for DOC building, tech support, and marketing.

Rest assured that PB is not going away, BETA forums will be restarted for a few new projects that are top secret .

If there are any other questions, please email me at jim@powerbasic.com

There is no planned scheduling of server maintenance that may leave the site down for more than 5 minutes in the future.

Thank all of you for your loyalty in PB and with our direction I am sure all of you will be pleased and surprised with future products. As always, our no-vaporware policies deem that I can not give you a date, I can only tell you that we are going to be beginning beta testing on our new products in the next month / month and a half.
__________________
Jim Bailey
PowerBASIC Staff

Source:
Statement from Jim/PB (http://www.powerbasic.com/support/pbforums/showthread.php?t=53260)

Speaking of "top secret" is ridiculous, especially when people are asking for a clear road map...

Isn't that the definition of crazy?

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

WINDEV today nearly at half price! (http://www.windev.com/windev/quick-overview-WD.html)

Get it John, no need for you to look at PB.
You just need a picture of a Delphi CD to get this special offer!

You can always benefit of the concurent deal price, it is just a matter to provide a legitimate proof that you own another compiler.

Thus the saving is very huge, the first time...
then, you will have to pay each year a minimum of 450 € + VAT to get the lattest WinDev version ;)
(and more to get WebDev and WinDev Mobile).

But for that price you well get a gift each year, plus plainty of nice girls on all the flyers and documentations...

Added:
PC-Soft has one of the most agressive marketing strategy i have ever seen.
And they have a clear vision of the feature --> WinDev is the first programming environment fully translated to Chinese Mandarin, this alone says much on their will to capture a large part of the world-wide programming market.

To be honest, even at the discount pricing, I don't see why someone would choose WINDEV over an MSDN Subscription with Visual Studio 2012 Professional. Is there something that I'm missing that makes it a vastly superior development platform?

Mike

I own both, and i can tell you that they do not serve the same purpose.

I am not pushing WinDev, i just use the best tool to perform a specific task, and when it comes to create ultimate looking application there is no comparison. You should see some of the applications i have created with it, in combination with my GDImage to change the full GUI on the fly, using custom skin theme i did for WinLIFT.

And their grid control is a real piece of anthology (i use it a lot).

...

Quote
Get it John, no need for you to look at PB.

I have been burnt too many times with commercial languages and prefer open source. Thanks for thinking of me!

My focus is on scripting APIs, JIT virtual functions and a multi-threaded smart callback/message handler. ScriptBasic for Windows and DLLC provides most of this functionality already.

OT

I find it interesting the karma feature of forums. Is this a modern day way of saying I disagree but I don't want to go on record by posting my opinion just in case I'm wrong? You may not like the sugarless variety of my comments but I don't see anyone posting that I'm wrong. It's no secret that Bob and I didn't get along in the end but that has been a growing trend with many of his longtime loyal customers he used along the way. 

John, this is still a Forum for People who like PowerBasic.
Now if youz go to a Mercedes Forum and tell that you think that Mercedes is bad for whatever reasons, your Karma may be in the neagtive. The same happens here.
Its not personal, its just that the people LIKE PB, and they do not like people who do not like PB.
This is very normal. Also i get mails from users asking me to ban you.
You can try that anywhere. If you to gardeners forum and you tell them that gardening is dangerouse, and hard work, the same may happen.

My opinion is that this forum should not be considered as a PowerBASIC forum extension.

I spoke of WinDev, C# or C/C++, as well as PB, because they are all part of my programming arsenal, and they are complementary Tools.

However what could realy make the difference here, is people posting source code or programming tips that could help others. And that is the real value of this forum and what could affect your karma ;)

...

As I have said, John can talk about Script Basic and O2 as much as he wish, but not hijacking other people's threads. His off-topic posts discouranging the use of PB and trying to promote the use of SB and O2 cause the same irritation that when you're watching a movie and it is continuosly being interrupted by the publicity. Clicking the smite button is a way of showing disapproval without messing the thread with more off-topic posts.

Charles Pegge has his own subforum and there he has talked about Linux, FreeBasic, O2 and other things, and nobody has disapproved him, and he has a positive karma.

John's aggresive campaigns don't work. He should have learned the lesson from what did happen in other forums such PB and FreeBasic.

QuoteJohn's aggresive campaigns don't work. He should have learned the lesson from what did happen in other forums such PB and FreeBasic.

Some people find joy in swallowing swords and breathing fire, I enjoy a cold beer and an occasional spicy taco if I'm feeling brave.

If you feel that PB has value and prepared to accept the risks, help Jim reinvent PowerBASIC to be relevant and justify it's asking price.

>John's aggresive campaigns don't work. He should have learned the lesson from what did happen in other forums such PB and FreeBasic.

At the other hand, in the case of PB, usually the negative topics where a serious no-no while Bob was alive.
By 'hiding' the negative messages no one will understand where a language like this remains, how people actually feel about the product (and what really should change).
I have first-hand experience of being negative about this product and people didn't want to know.
(I was overly negative about anything during that time though)

You can easily say make a move to another language but that isn't that trivial if your daily work requires that tool.
For me, and luckily, this is no longer the case.

I have to agree that this programming language is always behind, someone said 5 years, i say 10.
There are some sorry implementations done since PB5, PB5 would currently earn more respect than the following versions.
All features after that simply degraded this fine compiler, wrong syntax implementations (object call and forcing the use of variants for one), poor window mechanism, to silly for words.
Of course many hobbyist will not complain much, it seems they hardly use any real feature.
As long you go that road you'll have an excellent BASIC language compiler.
If you are a professional you can have tears in your eyes of the features being implemented since PB6 and up.

Again, i suspect for most of the prospects this language will do and perform nicely.
That's all fokes, i left the building for 99% anyway, just minor modifications and pressing F5 in PwrDev will do just fine for me.

My take is folks are tired of the Bob Zale no vapor-ware  (translation: I can't talk about things I don't understand) method of marketing the compiler. As fast as the industry is changing we need to know what direction the tools we use are headed. If PB is happy with their QB+ compiler with a basic COM foundation and they think there is still a market for that class of product, it might provide a side income for someone for a while. Zale couldn't stand the thought of even killing off the DOS product which continues to sell today.  The motto at PB is nothing dies, it just becomes a classic version at a discounted price. (like EZGUI)

I think PowerBASIC will do well as a hobby language but if drastic changes aren't made, it has little chance of making any grounds as a commercial grade compiler business would use.

Basic COM foundation? What a joke! The current compilers have one of the best low-level COM support in any language. You must be thinking in COM Automation, that M$ no longer uses since VB6 was abandoned. Unicode support and dead code removal are also first class. But how are you going to know it, if you don't use it?

QuoteBut how are you going to know it, if you don't use it?

I'm on the PowerBASIC black list remember? I can't get any response from support or register on the forum. Why would I spend money for this abuse and no support. I would hold judgment until you see their next release. That will indicate if PB has a future or not.

I don't understand what makes PowerBASIC so special. You mention the outstanding COM support but if it wasn't for you, there would be no OCX container. (ATL/yours) Maybe you can enlighten me by telling me what specific COM features does PB excel in over other COM supported languages. Here is an example of ScriptBasic doing a low level COM call to the SAPI API which was scripted at runtime via DLLC. I think Charles added COM support to ScriptBasic in a couple of days. Why does it take PowerBASIC so long to do anything?


'DECLARING PROCEDURES

stringbuf        = dllproc(mylib,"stringbuf stdcall i=(c*buf, i bufsize) " )
doublebyref      = dllproc(mylib,"doublebyref (d*num)"           )
longbyref        = dllproc(mylib,"longbyref (l*num)"             )
returnbstring    = dllproc(mylib,"returnbstring o=()"            )
rectanglearea    = dllproc(mylib,"rectanglearea i=(t*rectangle)" )
showguid         = dllproc(mylib,"showguid z=(t*guidinput,t*guidinput)"      )

CoInitialize     = dllproc(ole32,"CoInitialize (i)")
CoUninitialize   = dllproc(ole32,"CoUninitialize (i)")
CoCreateInstance = dllproc(ole32,"CoCreateInstance i=(t*ObjGuid ,i pUnkOuter,i context, t*IspGuid, i*Iface)" )

'COM SPEECH

VoiceObjGuid = dllguid("96749377-3391-11D2-9EE3-00C04F797396")
ISpVoiceGuid = dllguid("6C44DF74-72B9-4992-A1EC-EF996E0422D4")
Context      = 7
pUnkOuter    = 0
Voice        = 0
Release      = dllmeth( 2,"Release i=()")
Speak        = dllmeth(20,"Speak i=(z*pwcs,i flags,i pulstreamno)")
WaitUntilDone= dllmeth(32,"WaitUntilDone i=(i)")
print dllreco(speak)
Text         = dllwstr("Hello Everyone!\0")
hr=0
dllcall(CoInitialize,0)
hr=dllcall(CoCreateInstance, VoiceObjGuid, pUnkouter, Context, ISpVoiceGuid, Voice)
if (hr=0) then
  print "connected to voice\n\n"
  print dllastr(Text) & "\n\n"
  dllcobj(Voice,Speak,Text,0,0)
  dllcobj(Voice,WaitUntilDone,0xFFFFFFFF)
  dllcobj(Voice,Release)
else
  print "SAPI Error " & format("%x",hr) & "\n\n"
end if
dllcall(CoUninitialize)


José

Even if PowerBASIC has now one the best low-level COM support in any language, it comes much more than 15 years after the others. I remember the time i had to resort on JACOM/PB from Philippe Monteil. Unicode support has been introduced recently as well, and there are still bugs floating around. Dead code removal is also one of the latest addition, but it has been there for years for those using "standard" LIB.

Some may say, we now have SSL, but what a poor concept compared to LIB, we had the same problem at DOS time between  .PBU and .OBJ, no compatibility.

Like Edwin, i do not liked the direction taken by PB/DLL since the introduction of DDT, because ZALE spent most of his time trying to encapsulate the existing API (something he would never succeed in, because the core API is so large), and this was done at the detriment of learning the new technology and enhancing the core compiler. And i could say the same about the poor PB Editor (i am still using UEDIT32 with PB), but here again the resources dedicated to PBEdit could have been beter used to enhance the compiler, and he could have just used some of the tools created by you or other contributors. Like John, i think that the EGO of Mr. ZALE was his biggest problem, and i do not liked the way he treated many of his customers.

I would be very glad if PB could survive to the passing of his creator, but the lack of a clear road map is a huge handicap, this is the reason why i keep translating my PB code to C/C++ as fast as i can, trying to use a syntax as close as the BASIC syntax i like.

I agree.

DDT, COM (late bind) calls and some other parts where implemented that way it would be hard to change these to a better syntax.
I am very happy with the latest object implementation but then the lack of having constructor parameters compared to .NET and the need of interfaces makes it harder.
Just think twice before introducing syntax what never can be changed again.
In this case there would simply be a solution to add a 2nd class mechanism.

>Some may say, we now have SSL, but what a poor concept compared to LIB, we had the same problem at DOS time between  .PBU and .OBJ, no compatibility.
The SLL is one of the things that ticked me off, at the end it is a worthless implementation, to many (circular?) conflicts to make it actually work.
I have worked with the lcc compiler and that approach was great, it simply took the parts you actually needed from the precompiled lib.
What ticks me off is that they implement something you'll know that it will never change if it's a flawed concept.
I got pretty frustrated in a few years back, i still am with PB but i am moving on so why bother to much?

Bob Zale managed to keep all the plates spinning for a very long time. Will his commercial successors have the same success? They need vision, a plan and self-belief, and that must be visible to all. I'm not sure about relying on Bob's vision because, outside of organised religion, I don't think that that particular kind of magic can work.

Without knowing the roadmap or the resources of the company, we can only guess.

PB did a great job for me, got me from MSDOS and UNIX into writing Windows apps very quickly. Eight years on, I would probably just ignore Windows!

There does not seem to be much sense in having only PB in the toolbox, but then for commercial people there never was.

Chris,

I agree with you.

But at my age, it is a bit late to start learning a new language.
Even though I have PBCC6, I still use mostly PBCC5 and with the use of a few API I got rid of the 80x25 console limitation.

So, the tool I have is plenty good for the few years I have left for programming

Guy

Yes Guy, I generalised too soon. Long may you continue!

I should really speak only for myself.

Quote
I'm on the PowerBASIC black list remember?

I remember. I'm just refuting your afirmation that PB has only basic COM support because it is untrue, and repeating it a zillion times doesn't make it true.

Quote
Here is an example of ScriptBasic doing a low level COM call to the SAPI API which was scripted at runtime via DLLC.


'DECLARING PROCEDURES

stringbuf        = dllproc(mylib,"stringbuf stdcall i=(c*buf, i bufsize) " )
doublebyref      = dllproc(mylib,"doublebyref (d*num)"           )
longbyref        = dllproc(mylib,"longbyref (l*num)"             )
returnbstring    = dllproc(mylib,"returnbstring o=()"            )
rectanglearea    = dllproc(mylib,"rectanglearea i=(t*rectangle)" )
showguid         = dllproc(mylib,"showguid z=(t*guidinput,t*guidinput)"      )

CoInitialize     = dllproc(ole32,"CoInitialize (i)")
CoUninitialize   = dllproc(ole32,"CoUninitialize (i)")
CoCreateInstance = dllproc(ole32,"CoCreateInstance i=(t*ObjGuid ,i pUnkOuter,i context, t*IspGuid, i*Iface)" )

'COM SPEECH

VoiceObjGuid = dllguid("96749377-3391-11D2-9EE3-00C04F797396")
ISpVoiceGuid = dllguid("6C44DF74-72B9-4992-A1EC-EF996E0422D4")
Context      = 7
pUnkOuter    = 0
Voice        = 0
Release      = dllmeth( 2,"Release i=()")
Speak        = dllmeth(20,"Speak i=(z*pwcs,i flags,i pulstreamno)")
WaitUntilDone= dllmeth(32,"WaitUntilDone i=(i)")
print dllreco(speak)
Text         = dllwstr("Hello Everyone!\0")
hr=0
dllcall(CoInitialize,0)
hr=dllcall(CoCreateInstance, VoiceObjGuid, pUnkouter, Context, ISpVoiceGuid, Voice)
if (hr=0) then
  print "connected to voice\n\n"
  print dllastr(Text) & "\n\n"
  dllcobj(Voice,Speak,Text,0,0)
  dllcobj(Voice,WaitUntilDone,0xFFFFFFFF)
  dllcobj(Voice,Release)
else
  print "SAPI Error " & format("%x",hr) & "\n\n"
end if
dllcall(CoUninitialize)


Here is the same example using PB:


#COMPILE EXE
#INCLUDE "SAPI.INC"

FUNCTION PBMAIN

   LOCAL pISpVoice AS ISpVoice
   pISpVoice = NEWCOM CLSID $CLSID_SpVoice
   pISpVoice.Speak("Hello Everyone", 0, BYVAL %NULL)
   pISpVoice.WaitUntilDone(&HFFFFFFFF)

END FUNCTION


Quote
I think Charles added COM support to ScriptBasic in a couple of days. Why does it take PowerBASIC so long to do anything?

Was there a demand? Direct interface call support was implemented several years ago and nobody has used it seriously except Dominic and me. Even Edwin has not used it because he does not like to use include files. And please don't compare one implementation with the other. I'm quite sure that Charles can do it much better, but it requires more that a couple of days.

QuoteAnd please don't compare one implementation with the other. I'm quite sure that Charles can do it much better, but it requires more that a couple of days.

How can the two examples be compared? The SB version was scripted at runtime using a console interpreter. Charles example was just to test the new functions added to DLLC for low level COM access. COM is NOT ScriptBasic's focus but nice to know the functionality is there if needed. My point is Bob made everything seem like an epic adventure when in reality he was claiming ownership of everyones else's efforts. You are Bob's trophy example of how to use someone for a profit. Sorry if that hurts but but it shouldn't. Your generosity and the value of your work goes beyond anything that would come out of the PB shop. 

I did all the testing, because I was the only COM guy in the beta team, but he did the implementation. Therefore, most of the merit belongs to him. I think that you attribute to me more merit that I deserve with the sole intention of taking the credit away from Bob.

IMO, his mistake was to provide a new set of include files that does not have the slightest support for low-level COM programming. Mine are freely available, of course, but most PBers only use the ones that come with the compiler.

QuoteIMO, his mistake was to provide a new set of include files that does not have the slightest support for low-level COM programming. Mine are freely available, of course, but most PBers only use the ones that come with the compiler.

No container or include files needed to support the compiler. What would become of PB if you took my position and said I'm done?

I think you give Bob / PowerBASIC more credit than it deserves. It's a half baked makeover of a QB lookalike that is over priced.

Quote from: Patrice Terrier link=topic=4721.msg18586#msg18586..i do not liked the direction taken by PB/DLL since the introduction of DDT

it would appeal to hobbists. Blame BZ's business model, which gave him no benefit from supplying a few demanding highly technical developers.

Quote...i think that the EGO of Mr. ZALE was his biggest problem...

I cannot imagine how he could achieve what he did without a big fat ego, or for that matter without upsetting people. I have the greatest respect, though he is not one of my heroes.

John, you have bored me to death. End of the discussion.

I've never even touched the whole *.sll thing.  Static libraries were never language agnostic and were only ever useful if created by the same version of he same compiler.  There was never any standard.

COM on the other hand, suffered not from this limitation.  Folks had been screeming for object files for years and Bob Zale finally gave it to them.  But the real answer was COM and he gave us that too.  It works fine for me in C, C++ and PowerBASIC, and that's all I care about.  At least in my little world, I'm satisfied. 

I don't think Bob's vision was ever to follow closely along like a lap dog with whatever Microsoft trotted out as being the latest and greatest.  He waited long enough to see what had lasting value and implemented that.  That's what happened with COM.   

Actually, there are some minor problems (as Patrice alluded to), and I'm somewhat dispairing of seeing them ever fixed.  But I can live with it.

Quote from: Frederick J. Harris on July 29, 2013, 02:51:43 AM
I don't think Bob's vision was ever to follow closely along like a lap dog with whatever Microsoft trotted out as being the latest and greatest.  He waited long enough to see what had lasting value and implemented that.  That's what happened with COM.

I seriously doubt that.

PowerBasic included intrinsic support for COM objects in version 9.0, released in 2008. That was a full 15 years after COM was introduced (longer, if you include OLE in the timeline). While we can't know all of the reasoning behind what features did or did not make it into the language, I feel fairly certain that Bob didn't wake up one morning and said to himself, "You know, it's been 15 years, and Windows is still using COM. I guess it would be a good idea to support it now that I know it's going to be around for a while."

In reality, I suspect it had a lot more to do with more practical matters (i.e.: the amount of time and resources it would take to implement, the number of developers asking for those features, etc.) and not a concern that COM might be some kind of flash-in-the-pan technology that Microsoft would abandon. He would have known that COM had "lasting value" in the Windows platform by the mid-to-late 1990s.

I fully agree with Mike. Take into account that Bob developed all that stuff in ASM Code.
Its hard enough to code this in high level languages. Its much more hard to code it in ASM.
For the future i hope PB will leave this path to some degree to get a higher output rate on new versions.
I'd rather have MS windows get a lower rate, because unlike Powerbasic any new version of windows is worse then the version before. Since Windows 2000.

Quotebecause unlike Powerbasic any new version of windows is worse then the version before. Since Windows 2000.

You are kiding, aren't you  ::)

For me, the introduction of gdiplus, then DWM (since VISTA) has been a major step forward for my business, and the same for the new mixer API, and the hability to use the GPU for advanced graphic.

It all depends of your programming need, for PowerBASIC DDT, Windows 2000, is enough, but not to work with the current multimedia technologies that would require good audio and graphic cards and the latest DirectX (DirectSound) and OpenGL drivers.

...

Theo has a good point,

Since Vista was introduced, if you need to copy a folder that contain a lot of small files, it take forever to get the job done.
I have a Gigabit Lan and I can copy files quickly between my XP machines but with the Win7 ones the speed is incredibly slow.
It feels like you have an old IBM XT.

Same trouble if you use a USB key or SD card.  It is not my computer as I see the same result with my customers's systems.
That problem is well known by Microsoft and if you Google the question you will have zillions of hits.
Anybody know if Win8 solved that bug ?

I was thinking of installing Win7 on my main work machine but have decided to keep my old XP for now.

It is amazlingly fast on my computer...

Because i am always using the latest hardware:
ASUS I7 multi-core + USB 3.0 + SAMSUNG SSD 840 Pro, but of course that won't work on Windows 2000  ;)

USB 3.0 alone, is at least 10 time faster than USB 2.0, what to say compared with USB 1.0 from Windows 2000.

...

Patrice,

I agree that if you have a killer machine, you can hide the slow speed of the operating system.

But my point is that if you have 2 identical computer with a XP and a Win7 Windows, the speed difference is dramatic.

I also have a late gamer machine with quad core and fast SSD disk but would need to replace all my other computers to fix that issue.
A lot of my customers have been upgrading some of their equipment to Win7 and have been complaining to me about that problem that
increase backup time in their lan.

They do not understand why their new machine is slower than the old one.

Found possible solution.

Disable LSO (Large Send Offload) in Network Adapter Properties.
Will try it and will follow up on the result.

http://www.howtosolutions.net/2013/06/fixing-slow-sending-or-receiving-of-files-through-lan-network-using-windows/

Yes, it did fix the problem.

Wonder why Microsoft could not find that solution ???

Now I will think about moving to Win7...   And I will be able to play Crysis 3 that will not run under XP...

Added later :

And it also fix the USB transfer bug..

But beware : if you upgrade your Network Adapter drivers the LSO will be reset to on.

I also had these problems, that started with simply copying files "on the machine".
Much slower then under XP. Does it make a copy for NSA under the hood (Restore Point,Old version)?
Also the "I delete 100.000 files and the OS gets very slow" problem still exists and is even worse.
The the network problems - not just under Win 7 - but under Win 8 its even much worse.
The Internet speed is OK now. The speed in the LAN ... i got it fixed with Win 7, but Win 8 ist still slow, slow slow.
I just use this "8" for testing, the rest of the time, the kids from my brother use it for gaming, thats what itsreally good for.

PowerBASIC site has been down for about 24-hours.   It is 10:10 AM CST  9/1/2015.
Are there other PowerBASIC sites?    Sure glad this one is here!