Who created TI-99 BASIC, TI or MS?

[+dhe]

On 12/16/2022 at 11:13 AM, acadiel said:

I'll try and use Abbyy to fix these, and I'll re-upload the archive.  Thanks!

Any word?

[+dhe]

After a bit more reading, I found that...

In the late 80's Commodore went to Microsoft for a new license agreement for the Commodore 128 (it had a Zilog CPU onboard) - Micro$oft really put the screws to them since they (Microsoft) got cheated on the other licenses.

 

Also, in the late 80's - Tandy went to Microsoft and said - "We are introducing an upgrade to the Color Computer II, and we would like for you to upgrade Basic for this new enhanced machine." Microsoft must have been feeling particularly onary that day and said some thing to the effect. We have no interest in doing that, or giving you another basic license. We want you to put all of your time, energy and money in to you MSDOS machines.

 

Tandy got around it by putting the same ROM on the COCO3's mainboard, then they paid a company to immediately copy the basic ROM, to RAM and patch it with enhancements.

 

Microsoft like a good neighbor.

 

 

[Casey]

2 hours ago, dhe said:

After a bit more reading, I found that...

In the late 80's Commodore went to Microsoft for a new license agreement for the Commodore 128 (it had a Zilog CPU onboard) - Micro$oft really put the screws to them since they (Microsoft) got cheated on the other licenses.

 

As I understand it, this isn't quite the case.  (I could be wrong but this is what I remember from over the years)

 

Commodore wanted a Microsoft BASIC for the Amiga.  Microsoft wanted credit for Commodore BASIC, so as part of the agreement for Amiga BASIC, Commodore put a Microsoft copyright notice on the startup screen of the 128.  The Z80 CPU does not run BASIC 7.0, so I doubt its inclusion has anything to do with it.

[+dhe]

1 hour ago, Casey said:

The Z80 CPU does not run BASIC 7.0

True that!

Either way, Commodore said we need something, and it was just like Microsoft to take advantage of the situation.

[+acadiel]

11 hours ago, dhe said:

Any word?

Yep, please give me a few days - Christmas has been pretty busy with family time

 

[TI99ER]

On 9/30/2019 at 4:33 PM, RXB said:

What people say and what actually happened are not the same.

So true !  And so wisely put ! , especially considered how many minds that are totally closed these days to even discussing the possibility that things may be different from what they think or what they were told !

 

Still I have found it very interesting reading some of the discussion here ! 🙂

[RXB]

7 hours ago, TI99ER said:

So true !  And so wisely put ! , especially considered how many minds that are totally closed these days to even discussing the possibility that things may be different from what they think or what they were told !

 

Still I have found it very interesting reading some of the discussion here ! 🙂

Unlike most here I have the Source Code with comments by TI people that created Extended Basic GROM and ROM.

Some of it address TI Basic vs XB differences and fixes in XB vs Basic.

TI Basic could never have been written by Microsoft as those basics are very different in so many ways.

I think the confusion is a later version of Basic for Business Computers made by TI that could run IBM or Microsoft DOS.

[+acadiel]

Someone please verify that the attached archive is complete and all pages are readable on the three modified documents:

• 1) Monitor
• 5) FLMGR
• 6) EXEC

I did OCR FLMGR and EXEC - it's a rough OCR, and not 100%.  

Console GROM Source Code - Complete.zip

[FSword7]

1 hour ago, acadiel said:

Someone please verify that the attached archive is complete and all pages are readable on the three modified documents:

• 1) Monitor
• 5) FLMGR
• 6) EXEC

I did OCR FLMGR and EXEC - it's a rough OCR, and not 100%.  

Console GROM Source Code - Complete.zip 13.26 MB · 0 downloads

 

Thanks for updates.  I downloaded it now.

 

Yes, I checked every page, and they look complete now.  Good job. 

 

Did you try OCR them into text format so that they can be updated and assembled into code?

 

Also, we have to find complete source codes of 99/4 and 99/4A v2.2...

 

Thanks,

Tim

Edited December 27, 2022 by FSword7

[FSword7]

On 12/26/2022 at 12:15 PM, Casey said:

As I understand it, this isn't quite the case.  (I could be wrong but this is what I remember from over the years)

 

Commodore wanted a Microsoft BASIC for the Amiga.  Microsoft wanted credit for Commodore BASIC, so as part of the agreement for Amiga BASIC, Commodore put a Microsoft copyright notice on the startup screen of the 128.  The Z80 CPU does not run BASIC 7.0, so I doubt its inclusion has anything to do with it.

 

Yes right.  BASIC 7.0 is extended BASIC in 6502 code for Commodore 128.  I have a copy of Microsoft BASIC source code for Commodore, Apple, etc. It is available on GitHub.  We need to find a copy of BASIC 7.0 source code and other processors like 6809, etc. 

 

There is Microsoft BASIC 5.2 source code for 8080 processor and CP/M on the Internet elsewhere. 

[+acadiel]

1 hour ago, FSword7 said:

 

Thanks for updates.  I downloaded it now.

 

Yes, I checked every page, and they look complete now.  Good job. 

 

Did you try OCR them into text format so that they can be updated and assembled into code?

 

Also, we have to find complete source codes of 99/4 and 99/4A v2.2...

 

Thanks,

Tim

I did an auto-OCR.  This means that I did not correct any mistakes.  

 

Unfortunately, I don't have the cycles right now to correct the inaccuracies in the document's OCR nor clean up the actual document itself, so if someone else has the time to take this on, at least the documents are in the right order now to process.

 

I'm not aware of the 99/4, the 4A V2.2, or the 99/2 source being anywhere.  Some 99/8 source does exist and @Ksarul has placed it on ftp.whtech.com. 

 

This particular source for the /4A showed up around 2019-2020, and before then, all we had were the disassembled examples in the TI Intern book.

[RXB]

12 minutes ago, acadiel said:

I did an auto-OCR.  This means that I did not correct any mistakes.  

 

Unfortunately, I don't have the cycles right now to correct the inaccuracies in the document's OCR nor clean up the actual document itself, so if someone else has the time to take this on, at least the documents are in the right order now to process.

 

I'm not aware of the 99/4, the 4A V2.2, or the 99/2 source being anywhere.  Some 99/8 source does exist and @Ksarul has placed it on ftp.whtech.com. 

 

This particular source for the /4A showed up around 2019-2020, and before then, all we had were the disassembled examples in the TI Intern book.

Hmm what? 

TI Intern is dated copyright 1985 and Miller Graphics was showing the GPL and ROM disassembly in 1984 in the Smart Programmer mag.

I bought and typed by hand the GPL Programmer Manual and TI Extended Basic GROM and ROM source code.

Later someone found and made PDF of them but the original in TEXT FORMAT has my misspellings or mistyping in them.

I have no idea this 2019-2020 date you are talking about? 

[+acadiel]

48 minutes ago, RXB said:

Hmm what? 

TI Intern is dated copyright 1985 and Miller Graphics was showing the GPL and ROM disassembly in 1984 in the Smart Programmer mag.

I bought and typed by hand the GPL Programmer Manual and TI Extended Basic GROM and ROM source code.

Later someone found and made PDF of them but the original in TEXT FORMAT has my misspellings or mistyping in them.

I have no idea this 2019-2020 date you are talking about? 

Hey Rich - 

 

 

Thanks for letting me know about MG's disassembly.  Martin did his disassembly of the console ROM and GROMs for TI Intern in July 1984.  The book wasn't published until 1985.  So there's two of the sources for the disassembly of the console GROM/ROMs, neither of which was the authoritative console "official TI" source code.  The OP was wanting the original source code for the consoles themselves, which is why I didn't get into GPL, XB, or any of those.  Prior to these original source documents for the console (with programmer comments) came from FALCOR, we really only had disassembly's of the console source, never the original console source code.

 

I'm not trying to minimize you preserving the XB source nor GPL at all - I just want to be clear about that.

 

Edit:  (IMO, I think there was a very close relationship between MG and the user groups in Europe - I feel that Craig Miller got the idea for the Gram Kracker from the cartridge board that Martin Heiner in Germany originally wrote to him about and sent him the schematics, a writeup, and a board.  Craig was a great business person, but likely also got some of his ideas from others - he then developed and sold them.  @FALCOR4 might have more context.)

 

 

[+FALCOR4]

17 hours ago, acadiel said:

Hey Rich - 

 

 

Thanks for letting me know about MG's disassembly.  Martin did his disassembly of the console ROM and GROMs for TI Intern in July 1984.  The book wasn't published until 1985.  So there's two of the sources for the disassembly of the console GROM/ROMs, neither of which was the authoritative console "official TI" source code.  The OP was wanting the original source code for the consoles themselves, which is why I didn't get into GPL, XB, or any of those.  Prior to these original source documents for the console (with programmer comments) came from FALCOR, we really only had disassembly's of the console source, never the original console source code.

 

I'm not trying to minimize you preserving the XB source nor GPL at all - I just want to be clear about that.

 

Edit:  (IMO, I think there was a very close relationship between MG and the user groups in Europe - I feel that Craig Miller got the idea for the Gram Kracker from the cartridge board that Martin Heiner in Germany originally wrote to him about and sent him the schematics, a writeup, and a board.  Craig was a great business person, but likely also got some of his ideas from others - he then developed and sold them.  @FALCOR4 might have more context.)

 

 

I don't want to move too far off topic for this thread so a redirect:

If I had never seen the TI development box and how it "hijacked" GROMS 0,1,2 then I probably would never had been interested in developing the GramKracker.

[+acadiel]

On 12/28/2022 at 10:21 AM, FALCOR4 said:

I don't want to move too far off topic for this thread so a redirect:

If I had never seen the TI development box and how it "hijacked" GROMS 0,1,2 then I probably would never had been interested in developing the GramKracker.

Hah, I must be forgetting things in my old age - even my own thread  

 

I did look in the master document box again, and do agree that the following is really coincidental:

• Martin's disassembly of the console in TI Intern in July 1984 
• Craig's disassembly of the console starting in July 1984 in The Smart Programmer
• Some of the /same exact comments are on both/

 

This is just too much of a coincidence to me

 

[+Ksarul]

1 hour ago, acadiel said:

Hah, I must be forgetting things in my old age - even my own thread  

 

I did look in the master document box again, and do agree that the following is really coincidental:

• Martin's disassembly of the console in TI Intern in July 1984 
• Craig's disassembly of the console starting in July 1984 in The Smart Programmer
• Some of the /same exact comments are on both/

 

This is just too much of a coincidence to me

 

Here's the odd little question @acadiel: do the matching comments you found also match the comments from the original TI source code?  It might just lead to the conclusion that both of them had access to one of the TI printouts. . .in addition to disassembling things on their own.

[+FALCOR4]

4 hours ago, acadiel said:

I did look in the master document box again, and do agree that the following is really coincidental:

• Martin's disassembly of the console in TI Intern in July 1984 
• Craig's disassembly of the console starting in July 1984 in The Smart Programmer
• Some of the /same exact comments are on both/

 

This is just too much of a coincidence to me

 

It's hard for me to say, Craig was publishing the Smart Programmer before I met him.  I do recall that he and Heiner were in communication at some level, though, so I'm sure nothing nefarious was going on. 🙂  My copies of original ROM/GROM listings from a 990 development station came from Craig and I "seem" to remember that the listing comments did not match what was in the TI Intern.  I can't put my hands on my copy of the Intern right now so I'm going off memory and could be totally wrong here (fact check).  I always marveled at what Heiner had done disassembling and commenting all that code, a huge contribution to the community.  Another interesting memory, Craig once mentioned that he contacted lawyers at TI to make sure that he was not releasing any information that would upset TI.  I don't recall what the timeline was when he told me that, sometime in '85~'87?

 

Now I'm really off topic for this thread!  Am I in trouble? 😁

[+acadiel]

4 hours ago, FALCOR4 said:

It's hard for me to say, Craig was publishing the Smart Programmer before I met him.  I do recall that he and Heiner were in communication at some level, though, so I'm sure nothing nefarious was going on. 🙂  My copies of original ROM/GROM listings from a 990 development station came from Craig and I "seem" to remember that the listing comments did not match what was in the TI Intern.  I can't put my hands on my copy of the Intern right now so I'm going off memory and could be totally wrong here (fact check).  I always marveled at what Heiner had done disassembling and commenting all that code, a huge contribution to the community.  Another interesting memory, Craig once mentioned that he contacted lawyers at TI to make sure that he was not releasing any information that would upset TI.  I don't recall what the timeline was when he told me that, sometime in '85~'87?

 

Now I'm really off topic for this thread!  Am I in trouble? 😁

 

LOL, no, I think this is still relevant because TI BASIC is in the console source code, so we’re not that far off topic

 

It could very well be (and this is what I’m guessing) is that they likely conversed and worked with each other, because both came out with their publications of the code the exact same month.  The prior relationship letters back/forth with each other that you had in the GK documentation proved the relationship.

 

I think the comments they shared between Craig and Martin - some were similar enough to me to look like collaboration, but like @Ksarul said, we don’t know what role any original source played in here.

 

Anyway, the July 1984 commonality between both was just too coincidental for me