rja@edison.GE.COM (rja) (12/08/88)
I keep reading all of this griping by people who want to compile
huge programs while they have various extra shells and tools
loaded into RAM. Frankly I haven't much patience with those
arguments. Borland has a VERY GOOD product at a reasonable price.
1) If your program is too big, then cut it into smaller separately
compiled modules. Turbo C makes this easy with its 'make' either
from the command-line or the integrated environment.
You should be doing this anyway just as a matter of good programming.
2) If you want to run custom shells, sidekick, and such all at the
same time that is your choice, but Borland didn't write DOS and
they shouldn't go around trying to rewrite it either. If your
environment is that intolerable put real UNIX on your machine and
let it page virtual memory out to the hard disk. It's cheap these
days for '286 or '386 machines.
3) If you don't like any of the above, use the command-line versions
of TC and get the stand-alone Turbo Debugger. I'm sorry but the
upgrade from Turbo C 1.5 to Professional Turbo C 2.0 was ONLY
about $ 100. That is still cheaper than anything Microsoft sells
and frankly at that price it is a steal !
Disclaimer: The above aren't necessarily the opinions of GE, Fanuc,
or GE-Fanuc. flames to /dev/null please.
______________________________________________________________________________
rja@edison.GE.COM or ...uunet!virginia!edison!rja
via Internet (preferable) via uucp (if you must)
______________________________________________________________________________
UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T Bell Labs. schanck@ketch.cis.ohio-state.edu (Christopher Schanck) (12/10/88)
In article <1734@edison.GE.COM> rja@edison.GE.COM (rja) writes: >I keep reading all of this griping by people who want to compile >huge programs while they have various extra shells and tools >loaded into RAM. Frankly I haven't much patience with those >arguments. Borland has a VERY GOOD product at a reasonable price. Well, I am one of those people, so I'll respond. I think I did mention that I thought Borland beat anything else around in a previous post. >1) If your program is too big, then cut it into smaller separately > compiled modules. Turbo C makes this easy with its 'make' either > from the command-line or the integrated environment. > > You should be doing this anyway just as a matter of good programming. True. But what about the situation where you are running out of RAM when you are linking? As far as I have been able to tell, changing module sizes has no effect on this problem. >2) If you want to run custom shells, sidekick, and such all at the I don't, so I won't. ;-) >3) If you don't like any of the above, use the command-line versions > of TC and get the stand-alone Turbo Debugger. I'm sorry but the > upgrade from Turbo C 1.5 to Professional Turbo C 2.0 was ONLY > about $ 100. That is still cheaper than anything Microsoft sells > and frankly at that price it is a steal ! Yes it is cheaper than Microsoft, but why compare them; it is obvious Borland still wins the Price/Performance comparison. My comparison is to the Borland of yesteryear; the comparison is not as favorable. Besides, If they can sell a version (cheap) with only an integrated debugger, why not sell a version (cheap) with only a standalone debugger? That would suit me just fine; as the integrated editor is too slow for my taste (too slow wrt screen speed). As I have said, it only because the product is so *good* that these comments arise; if it was an inherently poor product, this conversation would be meaningless. Have a nice Christmas everyone, break starts tomorrow for me!!!! (poo, no net access..) Chris -=- "My brain is NOT a deadlock-free environment!!!!" --- Christopher Schanck, mammal at large. schanck@flounder.cis.ohio-state.edu
composer@bucsb.UUCP (Jeffrey L. Kellem) (12/12/88)
In article <1734@edison.GE.COM> rja@edison.GE.COM (rja) writes: >Borland has a VERY GOOD product at a reasonable price. > >3) If you don't like any of the above, use the command-line versions > of TC and get the stand-alone Turbo Debugger. I'm sorry but the > upgrade from Turbo C 1.5 to Professional Turbo C 2.0 was ONLY > about $ 100. That is still cheaper than anything Microsoft sells > and frankly at that price it is a steal ! Actually, it wasn't an upgrade, it was their introductory offer. Trust me, when I "upgraded", they didn't even bother with old serial numbers. Hey, it may be cheaper than anything Microsoft sells, fine.. But, it is definitely NOT a steal anymore. Especially, with the way Borland has been heading in pricing and as it always has been with upgrade prices. I first got involved with Borland products early on with Turbo Pascal version 1.0 (the 1024th copy :-). Since then, I've purchased several upgrades and if I looked through old papers for my receipts, I'd come up with a heck of a figure. I've spent AT LEAST $200 in just upgrades from version 1.0 (that doesn't include going to the Professional Package for version 5.0, only the straight upgrade). I admit, though, I wouldn't use any other compiler at the moment on the PC. But, Borland started out as a good company producing a very good product for an excellent price (v1.0 of Turbo Pascal was $39.95, if my memory serves me correctly, for you Borland history buffs) and has since started leaning towards higher pricing strategies when they're not necessary. Yes, they're making more money now. But, they could still be making a lot of money even with lower prices. I won't continue rambling about this...it starts to get into philosophies on software selling. > >Disclaimer: The above aren't necessarily the opinions of GE, Fanuc, > or GE-Fanuc. flames to /dev/null please. Disclaimer: Opinions? Oh, those things above..yeah, they're mine..I think.. ;-) >______________________________________________________________________________ > rja@edison.GE.COM or ...uunet!virginia!edison!rja > via Internet (preferable) via uucp (if you must) >______________________________________________________________________________ Jeff Kellem INTERNET: composer%bucsb.bu.edu@bu-it.bu.edu Sorry, .signature on CSNET: composer%bucsb.bu.edu@bu-cs.bu.edu vacation, with brain cells... UUCP: ...!harvard!bu-cs!bucsb!composer 8-) ;-) if trouble, try composer@bu-pub.bu.edu Smile... :)
ralf@b.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Ralf Brown) (12/13/88)
In article <2298@bucsb.UUCP> composer@bucsb.bu.edu (Jeff Kellem) writes: }But, it is definitely NOT a steal anymore. Especially, with the way }Borland has been heading in pricing and as it always has been with }upgrade prices. ... }But, Borland started out as a good company producing a very good }product for an excellent price (v1.0 of Turbo Pascal was $39.95, if my }memory serves me correctly, for you Borland history buffs) and has }since started leaning towards higher pricing strategies when they're }not necessary. Yes, they're making more money now. But, they could }still be making a lot of money even with lower prices. I won't An important consideration is HOW they're selling the programs. TP 1.0 was $49.95, every penny of which went to Borland since at the time they only sold direct. Nowadays, only about 10% of their business (not counting upgrades, which I'll get back to) is end users buying direct. The rest is dealers, which buy the package wholesale--about 40% of list (ever wondered how mail- order companies can sell software for 50-60% of list?). So Borland actually got LESS on its $100 TP4 than it got on its $50 TP1. The price Borland charges for upgrades seems to be very close to the wholesale price. Even so, I hear that Microsoft upgrades are more expensive than Borland upgrades. You paid about $165* to go from TP1 to TP5. So now you've spent $215 for five complete versions of the compiler. Seems to me MS Pascal was considerably more than $215 at the time, even without the cost of upgrades ($75 each, wasn't it?).... * $35 + $30 + $45 + $55 -- {harvard,uunet,ucbvax}!b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=- AT&T: (412)268-3053 (school) ARPA: RALF@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU |"Tolerance means excusing the mistakes others make. FIDO: Ralf Brown at 129/31 | Tact means not noticing them." --Arthur Schnitzler BITnet: RALF%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@CMUCCVMA -=-=- DISCLAIMER? I claimed something? --
rfarris@serene.UUCP (Rick Farris) (12/13/88)
In article <2298@bucsb.UUCP> composer@bucsb.bu.edu (Jeff Kellem) writes:
' But, Borland started out as a good company producing a very good
' product for an excellent price (v1.0 of Turbo Pascal was $39.95, if
' my memory serves me correctly, for you Borland history buffs) and has
' since started leaning towards higher pricing strategies when they're
' not necessary. Yes, they're making more money now. But, they could
' still be making a lot of money even with lower prices.
How do you figure? The computer and financial press has been full of
stories about how Borland *hasn't* been making profits. That's why
they've been cutting services and raising prices. Or do you have
some inside information that no one else knows?
--
Rick Farris RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014 voice (619) 259-6793
rfarris@serene.cts.com ...!uunet!serene!rfarris serene.UUCP 259-7757composer@bucsb.UUCP (Jeff Kellem) (12/15/88)
In article <206@serene.UUCP> rfarris@serene.cts.com (Rick Farris) writes: >The computer and financial press has been full of stories about how >Borland *hasn't* been making profits. That's why they've been cutting >services and raising prices. Ok, I take back some of what I said..I didn't mean to say they were a bad company. I haven't been able to keep up with a lot of publications recently. So, please excuse my "ignorance" toward Borland. Usually, I try to keep on top of what they are up to, being one of their first customers with Turbo Pascal. If you could send my via email (NOT the net; we don't want to clutter it up) anything relating to Borlands not making profits. I am very curious as to some of the reasons; references would be fine. Thanks... >Rick Farris RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014 voice (619) 259-6793 >rfarris@serene.cts.com ...!uunet!serene!rfarris serene.UUCP 259-7757 Jeff Kellem INTERNET: composer%bucsb.bu.edu@bu-it.bu.edu CSnet: composer%bucsb.bu.edu@bu-cs.bu.edu UUCP: ...!harvard!bu-cs!bucsb!composer