Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!rutgers!mit-eddie!bbn!oberon!stromboli.usc.edu!english
From: english@stromboli.usc.edu (Joe English)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Microsoft Vs. Borland
Summary: Windows
Message-ID: <12463@oberon.USC.EDU>
Date: 29 Sep 88 22:27:31 GMT
References: <876@galaxy> <1133@unccvax.UUCP> <2722@ima.ima.isc.com>
Sender: news@oberon.USC.EDU
Reply-To: english@stromboli.usc.edu (Joe English)
Organization: USC Committee for Pink and Gray
Lines: 21

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...

And another consideration: if you ever want to do any Windows
programs, you *have* to use MSC.  In order for Windows to do its 
code-swapping and multi-tasking stuff, every subroutine has to do some
weird stack frame manipulation in the prologue.  Which, of course, the
MS compiler can do and Turbo can't (1.0 at least).

Turbo 2.0 might have this, but I haven't heard so.  Does anyone else
know?

BTW, I do *not* reccommend doing Windows programming unless you are
going to get paid a lot of money for it :-)

      /|/| "If you think this is bad, you should see what it looks like 
-----< | |                                                         in *here*!"
  O   \|\| english%lipari@oberon.usc.edu