) (09/25/90)
Hi people, I have an upgrade option to Turbo C++ 1.0 from my current Turbo C 2.0. After reading the fine print, I discovered that I need a PS/2 to run the C++ compiler. Does this mean that I can't use Turbo C++ on my lowly PC XT? Does Turbo C++ only run on a 286 or 386? Since I only have a couple of days before my coupon expires, I hope someone can help me make an informed decision! Jose Duarte
sidney@saturn.ucsc.edu (Sidney Markowitz ) (09/25/90)
In article <9009241559.aa12636@PARIS.ICS.UCI.EDU> jduarte@whitechapel.ICS.UCI.EDU (J o s e D u a r t e ! ! !) writes: > I have an upgrade option to Turbo C++ 1.0 from >my current Turbo C 2.0. After reading the fine print, >I discovered that I need a PS/2 to run the C++ compiler. I don't know what fine print you read, but it is not true that you need a PS/2. You do need a hard disk or the equivalent. > Does this mean that I can't use Turbo C++ on >my lowly PC XT? Does Turbo C++ only run on a 286 or 386? TC++ will run on an XT. However it will be significantly slower than TC 2.0, because it will use the disk for swapping. On a 286 or 286 TC++ can take advantage of EMS and/or extended memory for fast swapping. I'm afraid that I can't advise you as to whether the difference in speed on your XT will be acceptible to you, since I haven't actually tried it out. On the other hand, you will be able to edit and compile larger programs than you could before. -- sidney markowitz <sidney@ai.mit.edu> [note: this account <sidney@saturn.ucsc.edu> is about to disappear]
lei@motcid.UUCP (Peter P. Lei) (09/25/90)
sidney@saturn.ucsc.edu (Sidney Markowitz ) writes: >> Does this mean that I can't use Turbo C++ on >>my lowly PC XT? Does Turbo C++ only run on a 286 or 386? >TC++ will run on an XT. However it will be significantly slower than >TC 2.0, because it will use the disk for swapping. On a 286 or 286 >TC++ can take advantage of EMS and/or extended memory for fast >swapping. I'm afraid that I can't advise you as to whether the >difference in speed on your XT will be acceptible to you, since >I haven't actually tried it out. On the other hand, you will be able >to edit and compile larger programs than you could before. Depending on the speed of your disk and processor, running TC++ on an 8086/8088 machine is probably undesirable. I tried running it on a 8Mhz 8086 with a hard disk avg access time of about 100ms (yes this is an old machine) and basically couldn't use it. It was much too slow in loading files even to edit. I've gone back to Turbo C 2.0 on that machine and put C++ on the '286. There is a major performance difference even though I have no extended/expanded memory (28ms drive though). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Lei UUCP: ...uunet!motcid!lei Motorola, Inc. Internet: lei@motcid.uu.net Cellular Infrastructure Division Phone: (708) 632-4426 1501 W Shure Dr, IL-27/GSM Arlington Hts, Illinois 60004 Standard disclaimers apply =)
techsup@NMC.gn7cg.pent.osd.mil (tech support) (09/25/90)
In article <9009241559.aa12636@PARIS.ICS.UCI.EDU> jduarte@whitechapel.ICS.UCI.EDU (J o s e D u a r t e ! ! !) writes:
Path: hq!dftsrv!mimsy!haven!aplcen!uunet!jarthur!ucivax!gateway
From: jduarte@whitechapel.ICS.UCI.EDU (J o s e D u a r t e ! ! !)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Date: 24 Sep 90 22:58:07 GMT
Lines: 12
Hi people,
I have an upgrade option to Turbo C++ 1.0 from
my current Turbo C 2.0. After reading the fine print,
I discovered that I need a PS/2 to run the C++ compiler.
Does this mean that I can't use Turbo C++ on
my lowly PC XT? Does Turbo C++ only run on a 286 or 386?
Since I only have a couple of days before my coupon expires,
I hope someone can help me make an informed decision!
Jose Duarte
TC++ 1.0 runs fine on any ibm pc compatable machine. I think the only
real requirement is that you have 640k memory and a hard disk. It may run on
a big enough floppy, but you won't be happy.
bruceJohn.Passaniti@f201.n260.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Passaniti) (09/27/90)
> From: lei@motcid.UUCP (Peter P. Lei) > > Depending on the speed of your disk and processor, > running TC++ on an 8086/8088 machine is probably > undesirable. I tried running it on a 8Mhz 8086 with > a hard disk avg access time of about 100ms (yes > this is an old machine) and basically couldn't use it. > It was much too slow in loading files even to edit. > I've gone back to Turbo C 2.0 on that machine and put > C++ on the '286. There is a major performance > difference even though I have no extended/expanded > memory (28ms drive though). It should be mentioned that Turbo C++ is actually two separate compilers. Since you said it was too slow to edit files, I assume you were using the IDE (Integrated Development Environment), and not the command-line compiler. I sometimes use a slow laptop computer (XT-class with a slow hard drive), and you are right-- the speed of the IDE on that machine is unbearable. However, using the command-line compiler and a fave text editor lets me still use Turbo C++ without pulling my hair out. -- *%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%* John Passaniti - via FidoNet node 1:260/230 UUCP: ...!rochester!ur-valhalla!rochgte!201!John.Passaniti INTERNET: John.Passaniti@f201.n260.z1.FIDONET.ORG *%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*