Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!endor!singer
From: singer@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: LSC 3.0
Message-ID: <4771@husc6.harvard.edu>
Date: 15 Jun 88 11:39:55 GMT
References: <327@ncar.ucar.edu> <730035@hpcilzb.HP.COM>
Sender: news@husc6.harvard.edu
Reply-To: singer@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel)
Organization: Symantec/THINK Technologies, Bedford, MA
Lines: 64

In article <730035@hpcilzb.HP.COM> cnc@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Chris Christensen) writes:

>Granted that eventually I would like more memory, but currently few users
>have 2 Meg. Many would rather not pay the inflated prices to obtain it.
>The Mac is a great computer that is currently expensive and heading toward
>overpriced. The upgade will not be $70 to me it will be $470+ with the
>current memory prices. I was disappointed in $69 dollars for the upgrade,
>but I was still planning on buying it. Now, I can't.

	The way you're talking, you're making it sound as if LightspeedC 3.0
is utterly useless if you do not have two megabytes of memory. I hate to
disappoint you, but this is not the case. There are two ways to go with
LightspeedC 3.0:

	1) Don't use the debugger, and save your pennies to buy a Dove
		MacSnap upgrade, or some other inexpensive upgrade.

	2) Use a Finder replacement under MultiFinder (I've written one
		that literally doesn't use any memory - it goes away
		when you launch a program) and reduce the partition
		sizes for LightspeedC and for the debugger. In a pinch,
		you can proceed as in (1) and then set up the debugger
		when you're really stuck. This is what I did until 
		very recently, when I was doing the LighspeedC libraries
		on a 1 megabyte Mac Plus.

>I do not want the upgrade for free. I would like to see Think grow and
>thrive. They have made a good product and deserve to benifit from it.

	If you don't want the upgrade for free, then why are you bitching
about the cost?

	If I had a nickel for every time someone flamed about some aspect
of THINK Technologies or its products, and then says "but I just want
it to be the best!" I'd be rich.

>But think back. For about a year we have heard about this wonderful
>upgrade, this glorious upgrade, this needed upgrade. One of the reasons I
>bought LSC at all, was that I heard that they were working on a source code
>debugger.  I fell into the vaporware trap. Now, I know that it may not seem
>like vaporware to you, but look at it from my point of view.

	You heard we were working on a sounce-level debugger, but until
very recently, the AVAILABILITY of said debugger had not been announced.
(Granted, ads were placed, but as has been already been said, that
was the fault of our ex- ad agency., and we publicly set things straight.
 If you're in a "trap", it's because you stuck your foot in it, 
not because you were mis-led into believing that there really was a debugger.

	Honestly, if you are this upset at having to pay for the upgrade,
go buy MPW C. or Aztec C. No one's stopping you. But neither one has
source-level debugger, and I can guarantee you that when they do, they'll
require 2.5 MB (in the case of MPW) to even *begin* using the debugging
facilities. And you'll find that either one costs around $400.


		--Rich

Rich Siegel
Quality Assurance Technician
THINK Technologies Division, Symantec Corp.
Internet: singer@endor.harvard.edu
UUCP: ..harvard!endor!singer
Phone: (617) 275-4800 x305