Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!mcnc!unccvax!cbenda
From: cbenda@unccvax.UUCP (carl m benda)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Microsoft Vs. Borland
Summary: price not the issue..
Message-ID: <1138@unccvax.UUCP>
Date: 30 Sep 88 00:40:56 GMT
References: <876@galaxy> <1133@unccvax.UUCP> <2722@ima.ima.isc.com>
Organization: Univ. of NC at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC
Lines: 25

In article <2722@ima.ima.isc.com>, johnl@ima.ima.isc.com (John R. Levine) writes:
> In article <1133@unccvax.UUCP> cbenda@unccvax.UUCP (carl m benda) writes:
> >In article <876@galaxy>, jshah@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Jigish Shah) writes:
> >> does any one have a preference between MS C5.1 and Turbo C 2.0
> >Well let me think... which of the above runs under OS/2 and DOS??
> >hint, it IS NOT turbo 2.0...
> 
> Which of the above is available for $67?  Sure as heck not MS C.  I
> have both MS C 5.1 and Turbo 1.5 (since the 800 number for the 2.0 upgrade
> has been busy every time I've called.)  Depending on what I'm doing,

The point I am trying to make is that if you would like to someday (today) 
use a C compiler that runs in OS/2 protect mode, It sure as heck is not
Turbo.  Try creating a 4Mb array using Turbo...

This brings me to my second gripe, and that is with the misleading advertis-
ing of the Turbo assembler  which Borland claims is 100% compatable with
MASM 5.1.. This is not exactly true because  TASM won't run in OS/2 protect
mode.  Now there's compatablity right??? MASM will run, TASM won't.




/Carl
cbenda@unccvax