ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) (06/21/91)
In article <9106210330.AA22569@lux.sait.edu.au> et891856@LUX.SAIT.EDU.AU (et891856) writes: >At the moment I have Turbo 5.5. is it worth my while upgrading to >turbo 6.0. Does it compile faster, produce faster code or does it >just take up more disk space? I have a twin floppy XT system. There are some views on this in /pc/ts/tsfaq21.arc (but you also should be getting "second opinnions"). ................................................................... Prof. Timo Salmi Moderating at garbo.uwasa.fi anonymous ftp archives 128.214.12.37 School of Business Studies, University of Vaasa, SF-65101, Finland Internet: ts@chyde.uwasa.fi Funet: gado::salmi Bitnet: salmi@finfun
et891856@LUX.SAIT.EDU.AU (et891856) (06/21/91)
At the moment I have Turbo 5.5. is it worth my while upgrading to turbo 6.0. Does it compile faster, produce faster code or does it just take up more disk space? I have a twin floppy XT system. thanks in advance tony -- Anthony Nuttall et891856@lux.sait.edu.au University of South Australia "Baldrick, go forth into the streets and announce that Lord BlackAdder wishes to sell his house. Percy, just go forth into the streets" Edmund BlackAdder , "Money", BlackAdder II
dmurdoch@watstat.waterloo.edu (Duncan Murdoch) (06/22/91)
In article <9106210330.AA22569@lux.sait.edu.au> et891856@LUX.SAIT.EDU.AU (et891856) writes: >At the moment I have Turbo 5.5. is it worth my while upgrading to >turbo 6.0. Does it compile faster, produce faster code or does it >just take up more disk space? I have a twin floppy XT system. On that hardware I would definitely *not* upgrade. It isn't faster, on an XT produces indetectably better code, but does take up a lot of space. If you don't have a lot of EMS memory, you'll find the IDE unbearably slow, because it does a lot of overlay swapping. Doing that to floppy disk would be horrible. The main advantages of upgrading are to get the Turbovision library (but the Object Windows library in TP for Windows is probably a smarter thing to spend your time learning), and the inline assembler. For most people, those just aren't worth it. Duncan Murdoch dmurdoch@watstat.waterloo.edu
zhou@brazil.psych.purdue.edu (Albert Q.Zhou) (06/22/91)
In article <9106210330.AA22569@lux.sait.edu.au> et891856@LUX.SAIT.EDU.AU (et891856) writes: >At the moment I have Turbo 5.5. is it worth my while upgrading to >turbo 6.0. Does it compile faster, produce faster code or does it >just take up more disk space? I have a twin floppy XT system. The main reason I upgraded to 6.0 is TVision. However, for those with slower machine and less memory, the following facts may be worth considering: (1) 6.0 takes more memory while in IDE. When you use Graph or TVision, a 640k machine can easily run out of memory. If one just does conventional Pascal programming, 640k might suffice in most cases. (2) The compiler is not faster than 6.0. As a matter of fact, since the compiler of 6.0 access the disk more frequently than 5.5, I cannot imagine anyone can stand the compiling process of a dual-floppy drive system. (3) 6.0 uses swap technique which takes advantage of EMS or lightning fast IDE hard drive to run a big program like TP6.0 IDE without taking up a lot of system memory. For the floppy drive system users, TP6.0 is like a hell. Almost every keystroke on TP6.0 IDE evokes the annoying noises generated by the floppy drive reading data from the diskette, and a torturing delayed response. (4) Besides using swap technique, TP6.0 sets up a standard for all file- related operations in IDE to automatically display directory/file information in the dialog box, which is completely inconsiderate to floppy drive system users. Rather than mentioning "hard drive recommended", the ad for TP6.0 should state "very unpleasant without hard drive".