cs2534ai@unm-cvax.UUCP (02/12/85)
<< pilot light on (very mild flame) >>
Just in case anybody out there is thinking of getting a C language
package for the Apple ][, I thought I'd throw in some info I acquired the
hard way...
About a year ago, I decided I would like to get a C development
package for my Apple //e system, and Manx's Aztec C65 looked good to me.
I wanted a package that would run under ProDOS because I planned to do some
heavy-duty development and ProDOS was better, newer, faster, etc.
When I called Manx, I discovered that the ProDOS version was not
available 'yet', but would be in 'about a month'. The price would be $299,
which I thought was quite fair, and their policy on development pleased me
to death. Summarized, it is: "Develop all you want, and if you sell it,
more power to you. We don't want a cut." The reason for that nice policy
is that Aztec C will compile your C source into native 6502 code, which
you can run without a "runtime" program, which would be copyrighted (apple
pascal programs require "runtime pascal" which must be licensed).
WELL, the month went by, and I called again. "Another coupla
months." This went on and on. I made the first call back in March 1984.
By November things were "winding down" and the package would be out "by the
end of the year". In December the latest scoop was "oh, end of December or
beginning of January" . . . . . . . . Y A W N !
TO THIS DAY the ProDOS-based C package is not available! Their girl
knows me well by now, too! I'm the jerk who calls once a month and expects
a package that has been advertised for a year to be available. (I got her
good once with "Okay, what's your latest lie?" :-) )
I have examined the DOS 3.3 version of the package, and it is
excellent! I just don't want to develop under DOS, and I feel awful
because I know that if this package only existed it would be the best
one available and well worth my $299. However, had I known it would be
this long from the start, instead of being teased and put off for many
months, I would have taken my money elsewhere, and I have now resolved
not to do any business with Manx, ever (the DOS copy I played with
was pirated! Want one? :-) ).
I just thought I'd let everyone in netland know about that. I
WOULD recommend the DOS 3.3 package, if I didn't hate Manx so much.
Any comments/questions/recommendations for other C packages
would be appreciated.
-DT
[Disenchanted in the Land of Enchantment]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
:::::::::
___________HOME___________ ::::: ::::: _____________WORK_______________
David B. Thomas ::___ ___:: Rocky Mountain Computers (Apple)
1406 Calle Del Ranchero NE ::\_*|-|_*/:: 2109 Wyoming Blvd. NE
Albuquerque, NM 87106 :: \_/ :: Albuquerque, NM 87112
(505) 266-1016 : (___) : (505) 292-2775 that's 292-APPL
:_______:
UUCP: {{purdue,cmcl2,ihnp4}!lanl,ucbvax}!unmvax!unm-cvax!cs2534ai
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We're prepared to believe you."gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (02/13/85)
Apparently Manx Software Systems has too few competent developers to spread them any thinner. A couple of years ago one could call Manx and talk directly with the developer of Aztec C (hi, Jim!). He seemed to have been put on their Macintosh C project (first release now available) and didn't have time to deal with ProDOS. I have no idea whether there will ever be an Aztec C for ProDOS, but if not it's a pity.
sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) (02/15/85)
It is best not to deal with companies that make promises like that
and fail to deliver. The last I heard, someone was trying to push
a law through that would prohibit advertising something unless it
was currently available. Any input on this?
Sean
--
Sean Casey UUCP: {hasmed, cbosgd}-\
{ucbvax, unmvax, boulder, research}!anlams---ukma!sean
{mcvax!qtlon, vax135, mddc}!qusavx-/
ARPA: "ukma!sean"@ANL-MCS or sean%ukma.uucp@anl-mcs.arpa
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------