Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!intelhf!hutch!hutch
From: hutch@hutch (Stephen Hutchison)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer
Subject: Re: several questions about 386 protected mode programming
Message-ID: <1991Apr11.051351.24583@intelhf.hf.intel.com>
Date: 11 Apr 91 05:13:51 GMT
References: <1991Apr9.141613.26291@jet.uucp> <10568@orca.wv.tek.com>
Sender: news@intelhf.hf.intel.com (News User)
Organization: Intel Corp., Hillsboro, Oregon
Lines: 18
Nntp-Posting-Host: hutch

In article <10568@orca.wv.tek.com> wallyk@orca.wv.tek.com (Wally Kramer) writes:
>In article <1991Apr9.141613.26291@jet.uucp> cm@jet.uucp (colin manning) writes:
>...
>> Does anyone have any experience of ... the Intel 386 C code builder ... ?
>...
>
>About 3 years ago I worked on a project using the iNtel 386 tools.
>To summarize, they are awful.  It wasn't just bugs, but major architectural
>flaws.  As for support, ....                  Want me to say it again?  :-)
[other opinions deleted ...]

The Intel 386 Codebuilder is a new product.  It isn't what you worked with
3 years ago.  Further, the 386 tools are significantly improved over what
you saw 3 years ago.  3 years is a long time in this industry, Tek's
time-to-market notwithstanding.  I'd discount Wally's experiences unless
you are dealing with a toolset sold to you 3 years back.

Hutch  (another former tek employee, btw)