From Rosetta Code

It has occurred to me that perhaps QBasic should be merged into QuickBasic. Perhaps copypaste what's here to a section on the QuickBasic page, and change this page to a redirect. -- Eriksiers 22:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds ok. I think you'd be a better judge of what content needs to be copied and what differences need to be highlighted. --Mwn3d 01:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'm done. Also moved QuickBasic -> QuickBASIC. Take a look, see whatcha think. -- Eriksiers 17:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
As I recall, QBASIC and QuickBasic were different branches of the same implementation of the same derivative language of BASIC. The chief difference I remember was that QuickBasic had a compiler built-in. --Michael Mol 03:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Not even different branches, really. I imagine that they might very well have built QBasic from the QuickBasic sources by using defines or even something in the makefile. (QuickBasic 4.5 has some things that QBasic doesn't, mostly related to asm, includes, command$ (QB's version of argv[], sorta), and some memory stuff.) -- Eriksiers 16:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
There are a few differences for the user: 1/ QBasic was free and available with MS-DOS and later with Windows 95 (on an accompanying CD-ROM), while QuickBasic was a commercial product. 2/ I am not sure and I'll have to check, but apparently there was a QuickBasic for OS/2: if it produces OS/2 executables, then it's more than QBasic that is a DOS program on OS/2 3/ Since QBasic is not compiled and lacks many thing regarding interrupts, a few things can't be done or require machine language tricks. 4/ Memory limitations are probably different. Now, Whether any of this require a separate language page is not obvious. I deduped since a few users have links specifically to the QBasic user page, but it's possible to reverse this. Bastet (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)