Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!herald.usask.ca!alberta!aunro!ukma!rex!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ira.uka.de!sun1.ruf.uni-freiburg.de!hartnegg
From: hartnegg@sun1.ruf.uni-freiburg.de (Klaus Hartnegg)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer
Subject: Re: MSC vs. Turbo
Message-ID: <1991May31.180852.25284@sun1.ruf.uni-freiburg.de>
Date: 31 May 91 18:08:52 GMT
References: <930@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz>
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Universitaet Freiburg, Deutschland
Lines: 21

mallsop@suna.mqcc.mq.oz.au (Mark Allsop) writes:

>we are using Microsoft C 5.1, but some people have suggested that Turbo would
>be a better compiler to use.  I really don't want to start a MSC vs. Turbo war
>on this newsgroup, but I would be very interested to find out the advantages of
>each compiler. I am thinking specifically of things like memory managment, ease
>of use of extended memory, overlay support, sizes of executables, speed of
>compiled programs, etc.                                           ^^^^^^^^
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Some weeks ago I got dbwrendr, a ray tracing program that was 
apparently compiled with Microsoft C. 
All source was included so I tried recompiling it with Turbo-C 2.0. 
Result: it now calculates the same picture in half the time!
btw: I do NOT have a numeric coprocessor.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Klaus Hartnegg, Kleist-Str. 7, D-7835 Teningen, Germany | include standard
Bitnet : hartnegg@dfrruf1 or hartnegg@cernvm            | disclaimer here!
Internet : hartnegg@ibm.ruf.uni-freiburg.de             |