Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!ece-csc!ncsuvx!mcnc!unccvax!cbenda
From: cbenda@unccvax.UUCP (carl m benda)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Microsoft Vs. Borland
Summary: Informed guesses are much better..
Message-ID: <1141@unccvax.UUCP>
Date: 4 Oct 88 00:03:38 GMT
References: <876@galaxy> <1133@unccvax.UUCP> <25171@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Organization: Univ. of NC at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC
Lines: 28

In article <25171@bu-cs.BU.EDU>, madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost) writes:
> In article <1133@unccvax.UUCP> cbenda@unccvax.UUCP (carl m benda) writes:
> |In article <876@galaxy>, jshah@andromeda.rutgers.edu.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...
> 
> "Compatibility Box" comes to mind.  I believe you meant to say "which
> of the above makes executables for OS/2 and DOS", in which case you'd

NO!!!! I don't even have the compatability box set up!!! It takes up too
much memory!  MSC 5.1 is specifically created to run in OS/2 PROTECT mode.
This is why it is ludicrous to even make the comparison.  While we're at
it lets just through in the VAX VMS C compiler for comparison on a price 
only basis since you people insist on comparing the compilers on that
level instead of which OS they R*U*N on!!

> jim

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.

/Carl
cbenda@unccvax