Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!gatech!ncar!ames!husc6!panda!teddy!jpn
From: jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Microsoft Vs. Borland
Message-ID: <5034@teddy.UUCP>
Date: 4 Oct 88 16:51:32 GMT
References: <876@galaxy> <1133@unccvax.UUCP> <25171@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <1141@unccvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson)
Organization: GenRad, Inc., Concord, Mass.
Lines: 31

In article <1141@unccvax.UUCP> cbenda@unccvax.UUCP (carl m benda) writes:
>Sorry for the minor flame.  I will concede that I use and LIKE turbo on 
>an old XT I use and would never consider loading 5.1 onto it but please 
>let Microsoft charge a little more for a compiler that has to DO much more
>namely work under OS/2.. This is a feat in itself and diserves the gold
>star for Intel 286 protected mode programming excellence.

Hang on a second there!  I didn't ask Microsoft to implement a single
compiler that runs/targets two different operating systems
simultaneously.  Frankly, I think it's a silly thing for them to have
done.  It makes each tool much bulkier than otherwise, because each
task must include the libraries for both OS's.  Frankly, I don't
understand why anyone would consider this a "good thing".

If I want to use OS/2, I'll buy an OS/2 compiler.  If I want to use
MSDOS, I'll buy an MSDOS compiler.  I don't use OS/2, and I don't PLAN
to use OS/2 in the near future.  So why should I pay for all the OS/2
compiler development costs?

Actually, I DO have MSC 5.1, but only because microsoft offered a $25
MSDOS-only upgrade from 5.0 (which was MSDOS only).  Of course, the
MSDOS-only 5.1  upgrade package was identical to the $75 OS/2 upgrade
(which makes no sense to me either).  In any case, I can't afford 5.5
Meg of disk for the MSC compiler package, so I use Turbo C exclusively
now.  Anyone want to buy an OS/2 compiler cheap?

-- 
     john nelson

UUCP:	{decvax,mit-eddie}!genrad!teddy!jpn
smail:	jpn@teddy.genrad.com