Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!sharkey!oxtrap!mudos!mju From: mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: corporate integrity ( was compiling flip with TurboC 1.5) Message-ID: <577.24CBE719@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> Date: 24 Jul 89 19:14:58 GMT Reply-To: mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us Organization: A neat desk is a sign of a crazy person. Lines: 73 In article <26600@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) writes: >In article <569.24C7A4A4@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us >writes: >>Do you know what a version number means? Do you know what it means > >No. Do you? Is this standardized? I'm a regular reader of trade papers >pertaining to computing and have been involved with computers since >1968 (CDC, Univac, IBM, etc). Use of version numbers varies among >companies and products. Yes, I admit that there is no hard-and-fast standard for version numbers. However, when you have version 1.0 of a product and the company has just released version 2.0 of that product, it stands to reason that version 2.0 will be more advanced than version 1.0, and perhaps even have some of version 1.0's bugs fixed. >>(or upgrade to) the new version. You don't sit around and bitch about >>how bad the old version was, or complain about the bug (that has been >>fixed). Now, admittedly, Borland probably should have tested TC 1.0 > >I have TC 2.0. Is there something newer then this? Do you want proof >of purchase? Give me your fax number. I have my invoice. I haven't had any problems with Turbo C v2.0's floating-point handling. (I don't use floating-point all that often, however, the few times it's been used it hasn't given me any problems.) >>However, sitting around, *after the bug has been fixed*, and complaining >>about it, doesn't do anybody any good. > >You apparently have different standards for product quality than I do. >Let me take an extreme example, the Ford Pinto. Would you argue that >because Ford eventually fixed the gas tank so it did not explode on >impact, the fact of a later fix precludes criticism of the earlier >failings? That's what you seem to be saying here! No, I'm not saying that Ford should not be criticized for their problem with gas tanks, impacts, and explosions. However, you should not drive around in a Pinto that hasn't been fixed, moaning and groaning about how the tank will explode if you hit something. Similarly, when Borland issues an upgrade to their software that affects you, you should attempt to get that upgrade. I'm still using Lotus 1-2-3 Release 1A. However, I don't go around complaining about how 1A doesn't support all those neat things that 2.01 does, like add-ins and VGAs. I don't use those things enough to make it worth upgrading. However, if I did, you can bet that I would have been one of the first people lining up for the upgrade. There is a fairly important difference between Borland and Ford: Ford issues a recall and does the fix for free, while Borland *sells* you Version 2.0. However, there's still no excuse for complaining about bugs in a program that have been fixed in later versions. >Maybe you are satisfied taking your socks off to count over ten. For me >the bugs in the floating point in TC 1.0 rendered it next to worthless >for several major applications. I don't take my socks off to count over ten, and I don't drop my pants to count over 20 ( :-) ). Neither do I get out my pocketknife and start carving up my fingers when I need to use fractions. >Do you have any financial stake in Borland? You certainly sound as >though you're worried about the value of your stock. No, I don't own any Borland stock. I don't even own any stock in any of Borland's competitors. -- Marc Unangst UUCP smart : mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us UUCP dumb : ...!uunet!sharkey!mudos!mju UUCP dumb alt.: ...!{ames,rutgers}!mailrus!clip!mudos!mju Internet : mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us