Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!hutsonda
From: hutsonda@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Dwayne Hutson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: SAS/C Compiler Version 5.10 for AmigaDOS Upgrade
Keywords: In response to my previous posting, and further replies.
Message-ID: <13385@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 28 Aug 90 04:20:37 GMT
Organization: Purdue University
Lines: 62

In article <274@cbmtor.UUCP> you write:
>In article <13240@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> you write:
>>I have to wonder where my money went to when I purchased the Lattice
>>product........ (deleted since I know what I said.)

>
>This is a major release (I talked directly to SAS), not only have they
>made many changes to the compiler/utilities, but they have also changed
>companies, will be sending you 6 disks (NOT PATCHES), and new pages for
>your manual. If you want you can argue that SAS should have called this
>6.0, but the number is just a technicallity.
>

 I just recieved my letter from SAS yestaurday and read all the info,
yes, there are many new improvements, and I, in fact ordered the 5.10
version today.  As long as this isn't a one disk addendum I am happy.
Which, after peaking with them today, I found it is not.

>The last version of Lattice was 5.04, not 5.4, the new version is 5.1
>

 Sorry, I made a typo, I knew it was 5.04, but thanks for the clearification.

>>Now I am wondering if I should have said anything at all.
>>Is there no longer real customer support anymore.  I mean it really isn't
>>support if you have to pay a good percentage of the cost of the original
>>itself.
>
>My father, a graphic designer who uses Mac products, was just asked to pay
>over $300 for an upgrade to QuarkXPress (a DTP package), and there new code
>PREVENTS more than one version of the code running on an AppleTalk network.
>They now FORCE you to buy several copies if you have several machines. No
>site licensing even. Stop complaining Lattice...now SAS has done a good
>job for the Ami.
>>
  The point was not that I spent $200 on Lattice and I got a bad deal, the
point is that they said they would honor an agreement and it was sort of, well
lost in the shuffle.  Besides SAS was according to the letter the original
writer of Lattice C, so they did play a role before.  I really don't think
my posting had anything to do with a purchase your father made of a $300
program.  But, thanks again, for the info.

Point in note, I found out what is offered in the new SAS/C compiler
package, and I should have found all the facts out before hand.  But if
it is such a major release, yes the version number should have been the
same, if only to maintain the same order Lattice started earlier.  Thanks,
to everyone for all the input.
And , YES, I was told this to me by a Lattice sales person.  When I
purchased this, there was the 5.02 version, which was the one I purchased
out on the shelves.  They told me, that any further releases that were not
a new whole step up would be shiped without charge.  Yes, they could have
changed this new release to 6.0, that is what I said, it would be more in
line with what Lattice set its numbering system to be in the first place.
But, 5.02 was the one I purchased and it was not 5.0.  This last bit is
in response to a previous posting by another party.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Dwayne (Tony) Hutson    +++    Phoenix Commodore Computer Group        +
+ Vice President of PCCG  +++    Indianapolis, IN                        +
+                         +++                                            +
+                         +++    hutsonda@mentor.cc.purdue.edu           +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++