Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!udel!rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!ee.rochester.edu!rochgte!f201.n260.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Passaniti
From: John.Passaniti@f201.n260.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Passaniti)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Turbo C++ 1.0
Message-ID: <41.27015C9E@rochgte.FIDONET.ORG>
Date: 26 Sep 90 22:45:17 GMT
Sender: ufgate@rochgte.FIDONET.ORG (newsout1.26)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:260/201 - Age Of Chance, Rochester NY
Lines: 32


 > From: lei@motcid.UUCP (Peter P. Lei)
 >
 > Depending on the speed of your disk and processor,
 > running TC++ on an 8086/8088 machine is probably
 > undesirable.  I tried running it on a 8Mhz 8086 with
 > a hard disk avg access time of about 100ms (yes
 > this is an old machine) and basically couldn't use it.
 > It was much too slow in loading files even to edit.
 > I've gone back to Turbo C 2.0 on that machine and put
 > C++ on the '286.  There is a major performance
 > difference even though I have no extended/expanded
 > memory (28ms drive though).

     It should be mentioned that Turbo C++ is actually two 
separate compilers.  Since you said it was too slow to edit 
files, I assume you were using the IDE (Integrated 
Development Environment), and not the command-line compiler.

     I sometimes use a slow laptop computer (XT-class with 
a slow hard drive), and you are right-- the speed of the IDE 
on that machine is unbearable.  However, using the 
command-line compiler and a fave text editor lets me still 
use Turbo C++ without pulling my hair out.


--  
*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*
John Passaniti - via FidoNet node 1:260/230
UUCP: ...!rochester!ur-valhalla!rochgte!201!John.Passaniti
INTERNET: John.Passaniti@f201.n260.z1.FIDONET.ORG
*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*