Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cwjcc!gatech!purdue!decwrl!ucbvax!ucsd!ucsdhub!loral!jlh
From: jlh@loral.UUCP (Physically Pffft)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Microsoft Vs. Borland
Message-ID: <1853@loral.UUCP>
Date: 5 Oct 88 21:17:39 GMT
References: <876@galaxy> <1133@unccvax.UUCP> <25171@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <1141@unccvax.UUCP> <5034@teddy.UUCP>
Reply-To: jlh@loral.UUCP (Physically Pffft)
Organization: At the Remote Controls
Lines: 15

In article <5034@teddy.UUCP> jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson) writes:
=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?

Well, if microsoft spread the develpement costs among the OS/2 users then
the compilers would be around $100,000 per copy (only half a :-) there).


								Jim

-- 
Jim Harkins 
Loral Instrumentation, San Diego
{ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest, akgua, decvax, ihnp4}!ucsd!sdcc6!loral!jlh