Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ucsd!rutgers!cmcl2!sbcs!sbpmt!altman
From: altman@sbpmt.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms.programmer
Subject: Re: Borland shafts C programmers AGAIN!
Message-ID: <1991Mar30.163852.12490@sbcs.sunysb.edu>
Date: 30 Mar 91 16:38:52 GMT
References: <1991Mar27.173542.5153@sbcs.sunysb.edu> <1991Mar27.210412.16532@ccad.uiowa.edu> <1991Mar28.153150.2794@welch.jhu.edu>
Sender: usenet@sbcs.sunysb.edu (Usenet poster)
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Lines: 49

In article <1991Mar28.153150.2794@welch.jhu.edu> glenn@welchlab.welch.jhu.edu (Glenn M. Mason) writes:
>In article <1991Mar27.210412.16532@ccad.uiowa.edu> cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) writes:
>>From article <1991Mar27.173542.5153@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, by altman@sbpmt.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman):
>>> 
>>> Plus, there are many things about BC++ that are either incomplete or
>>> not included.  Borland has explained this away by saying that they 
>>> wanted to go to market as soon as they had something reasonable to sell.
>>> 
>>
>>Speaking of which, anybody see THEIR Help Compiler yet??????
>
>I think that their scam is to immediately take "something useful" (as they
>so elegantly put it) right to market. But the way it really is is that they
>want to make millions on an unfinished, unpolished product, and force people
>to upgrade in just a few months down the road when the complete package is
>finished. I will bet I`ll be getting an upgrade notice in a few months and
>I'll be requested to pay another $100. for the enhancements that should have
>been included within this release.
>
>The thing that gets on my nerves is that I was too stupid to inquire about
>the Windows-based IDE and, more importantly, the Windows class library ...
>I just expected that it was included (didn't seem like a mistake that
>Borland would make). Now I know better.
>
>Glenn

Well, if you feel that strongly about it and don't think that you want to
exercise you right to upgrade at this moment and don't feel that BC++ was
worth it.  THEN CALL UP BORLAND'S CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPARTMENT AND ASK FOR
AN "rETURN MERCHANDISE AUTHORIZATION NUMBER".

I have a feeling that Borland will take it back and then in a few months when 
the Windows based IDE and and the class libraries (ObjectWindows) are 
included you can re-order it.

But for the meantime, please stop this whining like a four year old.
You are responsible for your own actions.  If you feel you made a mistake
try to correct and be more careful next time.  The rest of us do not
have to hear your screaming.

I have found BC++ to be 1000 times easy to use for developing my Windows
applications than C 6.0a and the SDK (which I own)  The upgrade price
was worth it if only for the Whitewater Resource Toolkit (LP $199.95).  
I will never have to look at a .RC file ever again.



--
- Jeff (jaltman@ccmail.sunysb.edu)