Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mailrus!ncar!noao!arizona!naucse!wew
From: wew@naucse.UUCP (Bill Wilson)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Turbo C 2.0 vs MSC 5.1
Message-ID: <1518@naucse.UUCP>
Date: 5 Jul 89 15:56:52 GMT
References: <644@octopus.UUCP>
Organization: Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ
Lines: 27

From article <644@octopus.UUCP>, by mikem@slp.UUCP (Mike Morris):
> 
> I am considering purchasing Borland's Turbo C 2.0 professional package and 
> am wondering what kind of experiences other netland users have had using it.  
>
I have been using the Turbo C professional package since its introduction
and am very happy with it.  I have ported a number of packages from 
Unix to the PC environment (shar, diff, Gnuplot, Gnuplot Help) and
have had very few problems.  The Gnuplot port was interesting.  I 
only had to make a few additions using the TC graphics library and
it worked without a flaw.  Most of the code that I have tried out
works fine without any changes.  Some code that uses things like signal
or other more Unix oriented protocol needs a little closer inspection.
In contrast to this, MSC at least in the Gnuplot area needed to have
special .asm files written to handle most of the graphics.

As far as TASM goes, I haven't had any problems with it either.
Every piece of code that I have tried assembles without any errors.
And the resulting programs even work as they should!  For the money,
I would go with the Borland products.  Have you ever tried MS tech
support?
 
-- 
Bill Wilson                          (Bitnet: ucc2wew@nauvm)
Northern AZ Univ
Flagstaff, AZ 86011
{Let sleeping dragons lie......}