Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!iuvax!bobmon
From: bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Microsoft Vs. Borland
Message-ID: <13426@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
Date: 2 Oct 88 19:15:49 GMT
References: <876@galaxy> <1133@unccvax.UUCP> <2722@ima.ima.isc.com> <8816@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Reply-To: bobmon@iuvax.UUCP (RAMontante)
Organization: malkaryotic
Lines: 22

jjboritz@violet.waterloo.edu (Jim Boritz) writes:
>
>Turbo C 2.0 is more expensive, and a debugger still costs more on top of
>that.

Turbo C v2.0, plus the Turbo Debugger and the (claimed) MASM-compatible
Turbo Assembler, is being listed for $250 and will probably retail for
comfortably less than $200 if past experience is a guide.  (It'll cost
me $100 to upgrade to these from my v1.5).

The code compares in performance to MSC v5.1, with the development
environment of QuickC.  It does support EMS, although not OS/2.  I have
an EMS board, I'm not running OS/2.

How much will you spend for MSC v5.1 (with a QuickC that only supports
one memory model), plus MASM ??

I don't see MSC's future portability being any better than Turbo C's,
but then I do deal with UNIX and I don't (won't) deal with OS/2.
-- 
--    bob,mon			(bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu)
--    "Aristotle was not Belgian..."	- Wanda