Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!mephisto!prism!gitpyr!peggy
From: peggy@pyr.gatech.EDU (Cris Simpson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer
Subject: Re: Turbo C or MSC
Message-ID: <9944@pyr.gatech.EDU>
Date: 14 Mar 90 19:31:23 GMT
References: <924@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> <1468@watserv1.waterloo.edu>
Reply-To: peggy@pyr.UUCP (Cris Simpson)
Distribution: na
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 25

In article <1468@watserv1.waterloo.edu> tom@mims-iri (Tom Haapanen) writes:
>>> Do you know of some real and important differences that could move
>>> me to select Microsoft C instead of Turbo C ?
>
>Kevin Trojanowski <troj@icon.weeg.uiowa.edu> writes:
>In version 6.0 of Microsoft C (as of last week, unannounced, but previewed
>in the March BYTE), [stuff deleted] 
>
>>4)  I prefer Borland's documentation, though Microsoft's is very usable.
  Get Serious!
>
>Doesn't Borland still use the paperback-style manuals?  If so, I'd galdly
>pay $50 extra to get real binders as with MSC.  MSC has comprehensive
>documentation, but I haven't used Turbo C, so I can't compare.

	Unfortunately, you can expect MS to have paperback manuals too.
Witness the OS/2 Programmer's Ref.  In addition, they abandoned the 
one-function-per-page "rule" with OS/2 1.1 Prog Ref kit.

	From talking to MS people here and on CI$, paperback is the way 
of the future. (Boo! Hiss!)  I'm told it was a "marketing decision".
(stupid marketing decision, IMHO).


cris