Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!syntron!jtsv16!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!mailrus!iuvax!pur-ee!pc.ecn.purdue.edu!jmoore
From: jmoore@pc.ecn.purdue.edu (James D Moore)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Turbo C 2.0 / pricing reality, buil
Message-ID: <1104@pc.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: 25 Oct 88 19:29:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: pc.1104
References: <182@imspw6.UUCP> <16800385@clio>
Reply-To: jmoore@pc.ecn.purdue.edu.UUCP (James D Moore)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Lines: 29

In article <16800385@clio> berger@clio.las.uiuc.edu writes:
>
>Borland's development environment works ok on a 100% compatible
>machine, but the Microsoft stuff continues to work on generic
>ms-dos computers.  To those of us with an investment in machines
>that aren't 100% compatible, that's a big selling point.
>
>			Mike Berger
>			Department of Statistics 
>			University of Illinois 

Obviously you have never realy worked with Borland software. 
At work we typicaly buy strictly IBM machines. We have not 
been allowed to buy compatibles. I use the Borland software
extensively at work and at home on my "generic" compatible
system. I do all of my PC program writing with Borland and
90% of it is done on my XT compatable system at home. I have
not had the first problem with Borland software not working 
on my generic ms-dos machine. I wish I could say the same 
about Microsoft.  Could you please explain your statement ? 
How can people make statements like this ? I still feel like 
many that the for the cost Borland is by far the best deal.


		Jim Moore
		Industrial Engr. Department
		Purdue University

		jmoore@cimlab.ecn.purdue.edu