wrp@krebs.acc.virginia.edu (Wm Pearson) (11/18/87)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: MSC5.0 benchmarks Expires: References: Sender: Reply-To: wrp@biochsn.acc.virginia.edu (William R. Pearson) Followup-To: Distribution: usa Organization: University of Virginia, Charlottesville Keywords: I received my copy of the MSC 5.0 Update on Monday, November 16. The packing slip indicates that it was shippe on Nov. 4. The package comes on 9 disks; one file on one of the disks (a library) was unreadable. Here are some early benchmarks, to put the advertising hype in perspective: Using the dhrystone 1.1 benchmark, Turbo'C' produced 1785 dhrystones/sec (28 sec), MSC 5.0 (CL dhry.c) 1666 and (CL -Ox -Gs dhry.c) 1724 (29 sec). On a rapid protein database searching program which compares a 200 residue sequence with a library containing 1.6 X10^6 residues, Turbo'C' required 4:20 while MSC required 4:05. MSC 5.0 compiled a large package of code previously written for MSC 4.0 (and Turbo'C') with no problems. So Turbo'C' still has the edge, because of compilation time and cost. I like to distribute source code that other people can read and modify, with Turbo'C' they can compile it for <$70.00. (It also requires a lot less disk space). But MSC does contain a graphics library. Unfortunately the MSC graphics library appears to not support the hercules graphics cards. I wonder what Turbo'C' 2.0 will look like. Bill Pearson wrp@virginia.EDU ...!uunet!virginia, as
manes@dasys1.UUCP (11/21/87)
In article <274@krebs.acc.virginia.edu>, wrp@krebs.acc.virginia.edu (Wm Pearson) writes: > MSC > does contain a graphics library. Unfortunately the MSC graphics library > appears to not support the hercules graphics cards. > > I wonder what Turbo'C' 2.0 will look like. > I hope it supports EGA better than Turbo. I have a fairly substantial program that I've compiled successfully on Lattice and MSC 3.0 and which makes extensive use of both the comm port and (if present) an EGA monitor. Two years of writing, rewriting and debugging plus over a year of beta testing on several sites with a variety of hardwares convince me that the code is solid. However, when I compiled with Turbo, the program routinely hung the machine at random points when writing to EGA V-RAM. I spent days debugging the modest mods I made for Turbo C until I downloaded a compiled-with-Turbo, executable MicroEMACS. Like my program, it crashed during screen update. Hardware is a very-compatible Smartek AT and Mitsuba EGA, neither of which has had graphics compatibility problems before. Recompiling both my program (Magpie) and MicroEMACS 3.9 using MSC3.0 and the problems disappear. -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------- + Steve Manes Roxy Recorders, Inc. NYC + decvax!philabs!cmcl2!hombre!magpie!manes Magpie BBS: 212-420-0527 + uunet!iuvax!bsu-cs!zoo-hq!magpie!manes 300/1200/2400
davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP (William E. Davidsen Jr) (11/24/87)
In article <274@krebs.acc.virginia.edu> wrp@krebs.acc.virginia.edu (Wm Pearson) writes: | So Turbo'C' still has the edge, because of compilation time |and cost. I like to distribute source code that other people can read |and modify, with Turbo'C' they can compile it for <$70.00. (It also |requires a lot less disk space). But MSC |does contain a graphics library. Unfortunately the MSC graphics library |appears to not support the hercules graphics cards. QuickC and TurboC have the same list price $99 (at least quoted in the ad in front of me). I doubt that the discount prices vary much either. I like QuickC because of the debugger and graphics. -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
pre1@sphinx.uchicago.edu (Grant Prellwitz) (11/25/87)
In article <7954@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <274@krebs.acc.virginia.edu> wrp@krebs.acc.virginia.edu (Wm Pearson) writes: >| So Turbo'C' still has the edge, because of compilation time >|and cost. I like to distribute source code that other people can read >|and modify, with Turbo'C' they can compile it for <$70.00. (It also >|requires a lot less disk space). But MSC >|does contain a graphics library. Unfortunately the MSC graphics library >|appears to not support the hercules graphics cards. > >QuickC and TurboC have the same list price $99 (at least quoted in the >ad in front of me). I doubt that the discount prices vary much either. I >like QuickC because of the debugger and graphics. >-- > bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) > {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen >"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me Well, with Turbo C version 1.5, TC will be getting graphics ability at no added cost. It will supposedly support CGA, EGA, Hercules, VGA, and ATT 400. Expected date of release: Mid December. TC has the advantage of giving you the option of command line or menu driven in all models (apparently QC only has Medium in menu mode). The debugger is the only thing TC is lacking that it could really use (they are supposedly working on one to be included with version 2.0). I went with TC when it first came out, having had good experiences with TP (and no good experiences with MicroSoft) and have been pleased. Not having enough $$ to get both and be able to compare, I'll stick with TC. Grant Prellwitz -- =====================Grant Prellwitz========================== !ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!pre1 pre1@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP 76474,2121 (CIS) pre1 (BIX) !ihnp4!chinet!pre1 contents sole responsibility of poster.
richardh@killer.UUCP (11/26/87)
In article <2773@sphinx.uchicago.edu>, pre1@sphinx.uchicago.edu (Grant Prellwitz) writes: > In article <7954@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: > >In article <274@krebs.acc.virginia.edu> wrp@krebs.acc.virginia.edu (Wm Pearson) writes: > >| So Turbo'C' still has the edge, because of compilation time > >|and cost. I like to distribute source code that other people can read > >|and modify, with Turbo'C' they can compile it for <$70.00. (It also > >|requires a lot less disk space). But MSC > >|does contain a graphics library. Unfortunately the MSC graphics library > >|appears to not support the hercules graphics cards. > > > >QuickC and TurboC have the same list price $99 (at least quoted in the > >ad in front of me). I doubt that the discount prices vary much either. I > >like QuickC because of the debugger and graphics. > >-- > > Well, with Turbo C version 1.5, TC will be getting graphics ability at no > added cost. It will supposedly support CGA, EGA, Hercules, VGA, and ATT 400. > Expected date of release: Mid December. > TC has the advantage of giving you the option of command line or menu driven > in all models (apparently QC only has Medium in menu mode). The debugger is > the only thing TC is lacking that it could really use (they are supposedly > working on one to be included with version 2.0). I went with TC when it first > came out, having had good experiences with TP (and no good experiences with > MicroSoft) and have been pleased. Not having enough $$ to get both and be able > to compare, I'll stick with TC. > Add my vote for Turbo C. It is a very solid, versatile product. I still think it's one of the best values (along with PCED) in MS-DOS software today. And now a word (or two) about Turbo C version 1.5: According to a Borland rep on CIS, Turbo C 1.5 started shipping Monday. The two biggest additions are the graphics library (appears to be very thorough and well done, but I'm not a graphics guru; it has everything I'll need) and the additions/modifications to the standard screen output functions to give them Turbo Pascal-like capabilities (your old friends gotoxy(), wherex(), wherey(), window(), insline(), delline(), clrscr(), clreol(), highvideo(), movetext(), textattr(), etc., etc. are back -- but they did it right - you can ignore them if you wish and you'll never know they are there.) On top of that are such things as stdprn and stdaux are automatically defined, a fast version of grep, and a librarian utility. Other things are the -I and -L options now support a multiple directory format and the linker searches the -L directories for all libraries, including user libraries. Also, all known bugs were fixed. On the downside, the bessel function package is still not part of the standard libraries. In case you are wondering, I was a beta tester for version 1.5. I have never used Quick C, but the restriction to medium model is enough for me to know I'm not interested. And I can't afford MS C 5.0. richard hargrove ...!killer!richardh -------------------