Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!syntron!jtsv16!uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!ucsdhub!ucsd!nosc!helios.ee.lbl.gov!ux1.lbl.gov!forrest
From: forrest@ux1.lbl.gov (Jon Forrest)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: What's the Poop on Turbo C 2.0?
Message-ID: <1195@helios.ee.lbl.gov>
Date: 28 Oct 88 17:43:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: helios.1195
Sender: usenet@helios.ee.lbl.gov
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley
Lines: 14

I've been restraining myself from buying Turbo C 2.0 until
a general consensus is reached on comp.sys.ibm.pc
that this version is OK. (I remember what happened when Turbo
C first came out. The best bug-reports came out first here).
Yet, aside from discussions on upgrade costs and general ranting
about Borland vs. Microsoft, there hasn't been anywhere near as much
discussion about Turbo as I had expected. Why is this? Are there no
bugs or other problems with Turbo C 2.0? What about some of the
serious benchmarks that had been done with Turbo C 1.5 - have they
been done with 2.0?
Jon Forrest		Lawrence Berkeley Lab., 486-4991
forrest@lbl.gov			(internet)
ucbvax!lbl-csam!ux1!forrest	(uucp)
FORREST@LBL			(bitnet)