Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!iconsys!caeco!jose!pedro!erik_selberg
From: erik_selberg@pedro.UUCP (Erik Selberg)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: LSC 3.0
Message-ID: <585@pedro.UUCP>
Date: 5 Aug 88 18:51:16 GMT
References: <327@ncar.ucar.edu> <730034@hpcilzb.HP.COM> <7763@cup.portal.com>
Organization: Bitsko's Bar & Grill, Public Access, Salt Lake City
Lines: 22

In article <7763@cup.portal.com>, Thomas_E_Zerucha@cup.portal.com writes: 
> Wouldn't it have been better to have a two level upgrade, say $30 for the 
> LSC 3.0 upgrade and $40 for the debugger?  It seems that very few users 
> have (or will have until the chip prices drop) 2 Meg, that to charge $70 
> for an upgrade, half of which is useless to the majority of people is what 
> is being complained about.  If you had split it, then you could pay a little 
> now for what you could use, and the rest later when you have upgraded your 
> computer to be able to use it. 


(this is to that someone who's @ Symantec/THINK) 
  
question: why is LSC's debugger a separate patch program requiring MultiFinder 
et all? It seems that LSC uses an extravagent amount of memory using all 
the files; yet LSP has been doing that for about 2 years now, and I can 
(and am) create a 140K application with it (and still debug et al) on a 512E 
with 1 800K floppy (without a lot of disk swapping, for that matter!). 
It seems that you guys at Symantec have just decided to make a patch program 
instead of a working integrated source debugger, ala LSP. The question again" 
WHY????? 
  
Erik