shaffer@operations.dccs.upenn.edu (Earl Shaffer) (07/20/87)
Well, to those of you who flamed my first posting about Borland not offering free upgrades and fixes for Turbo C v1.0, here is some news: BORLAND CUSTOMER SERVICE CONFIRMS ERRORS IN THE BUG PATCH LISTINGS! Wonderful. Not only is the 1.0 stuff buggy, but even their patches have bugs! Also, without a connection to COMPUSERVE, you cannot test your patch work. I can expect the usual people to flame this too and say '1.0 sw is allowed to be buggy', and of course the standard 'how long have you been in PC sw?' and I will probably get a 'you have to wait for the patch patches'. Have fun! ============================================================================== Earl Shaffer - University of Pennsylvania - Data Communications Department "Time was invented so that everything wouldn't happen at once." Steven Wright ==============================================================================
bub@rlgvax.UUCP ( Mongo Mauler) (07/21/87)
> I can expect the usual people to flame this too and say '1.0 sw is allowed > to be buggy', and of course the standard 'how long have you been in PC sw?' > and I will probably get a 'you have to wait for the patch patches'. You sure do seem to be a cynical cuss! Was there some awful, terrible tragedy in your childhood involving one of the big commercial software development shops?
iverson@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Tim Iverson) (07/22/87)
In article <555@rlgvax.UUCP> bub@rlgvax.UUCP ( Mongo Mauler) writes: >> I can expect the usual people to flame this too and say '1.0 sw is allowed >> to be buggy', and of course the standard 'how long have you been in PC sw?' >> and I will probably get a 'you have to wait for the patch patches'. > > You sure do seem to be a cynical cuss! Was there some awful, > terrible tragedy in your childhood involving one of the big > commercial software development shops? I think this flame is uncalled for. Most of us don't mind a few minor bugs in a first release - its expected. Just as prompt patches are. But, Borland has really screwed up. Instead of minor bugs, floating point is so broken it's useless. To top it all off, the supplied patches are also buggy. I think that this is just cause for complaint. Also, most people here on the usenet seem to take offense at fools like you who flame while hidden behind a psuedonym. The usenet isn't a kiddie BBS where everyone uses 'handles'. If you feel the need to protect your fragil ego in such a manner, then perhaps you should go back to your local BBS, this isn't the place for such childishness. - Tim Iverson iverson@cory.Berkeley.EDU ucbvax!cory!iverson
dca@kesmai.COM (David C. Albrecht) (07/25/87)
In article <3092@zen.berkeley.edu>, iverson@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Tim Iverson) writes: > In article <555@rlgvax.UUCP> bub@rlgvax.UUCP ( Mongo Mauler) writes: > >> I can expect the usual people to flame this too and say '1.0 sw is allowed > >> to be buggy', and of course the standard 'how long have you been in PC sw?' > >> and I will probably get a 'you have to wait for the patch patches'. > > > > You sure do seem to be a cynical cuss! Was there some awful, > > terrible tragedy in your childhood involving one of the big > > commercial software development shops? > > I think this flame is uncalled for. Most of us don't mind a few minor > bugs in a first release - its expected. Just as prompt patches are. > But, Borland has really screwed up. Instead of minor bugs, floating point > is so broken it's useless. To top it all off, the supplied patches are > also buggy. I think that this is just cause for complaint. > > Also, most people here on the usenet seem to take offense at fools > like you who flame while hidden behind a psuedonym. The usenet isn't > a kiddie BBS where everyone uses 'handles'. If you feel the need to > protect your fragil ego in such a manner, then perhaps you should > go back to your local BBS, this isn't the place for such childishness. > Flame? The only flame I see here is the author of the final message. While I expect the middle author should have :-)'ed it still hardly qualifies for flame. I read the second message as a commentary on the negativism of the first not as any statement on whether Borland 'screwed' up. I think most people appreciate a little mild humor so long as it is a small proportion of net traffic. Reacting to an innocuous message in such an overblown hostile fashion seems vastly more childish (or foolish if you wish) to me. What is YOUR ego problem. David Albrecht
darrylo@hpsrlc.HP.COM (Darryl Okahata) (07/29/87)
In comp.sys.ibm.pc, NU079509@NDSUVM1.BITNET (Brett Person) writes: > I figured a 1.0 version would have bygs, That's why I didn't buy one. > Does anyone know when ,or if, 2.0 will be out? > TC gets rave revirews from my friends who do have it. > I may even go out and buy one if a new improved version doesn't come > out soon. At < $100 I can put up with a few bugs. It's not like I'll have > paid Microsoft prices. > -Brett > ------- > Brett G. Person "We can change the world. > Bitnet: ncperson@ndsuvax Rearrange the world." > nu079509@ndsuvm1 - Crosby,stills & Nash > usenet: ihnp4!umn-cs!ndsuvax!ncperson > > ---------- I don't know about a version 2.0 compiler, but Borland is constantly fixing bugs and *shipping* the fixed compiler to distributors (at least they did in the past). Usually, this means that the compiler you buy today will probably not have as many bugs as one that was bought last month (unless the copy you buy has been sitting on the shelf or the distributor's warehouse for some time -- which IS possible). My only gripe with this is that Borland DOES NOT CHANGE the version/revision/etc. number -- it always seems to be version 1.0, and so the only way you can tell what "version" you have is to look at the time/date stamp of the compiler, which is changed if you apply a patch to fix a bug fixed after you bought your copy of Turbo C. -- Darryl Okahata {hplabs!hpcea!, hpfcla!} hpsrla!darrylo CompuServe: 75206,3074 Disclaimer I: the above is the author's personal opinion and is not the opinion or policy of his employer or of the little green men that have been following him all day. Disclaimer II: I have no connections with Borland, other than as a customer.
zu@ethz.UUCP (Urs Zurbuchen) (08/03/87)
In article <3320038@hpsrlc.HP.COM> darrylo@hpsrlc.HP.COM (Darryl Okahata) writes: >... only gripe with this is >that Borland DOES NOT CHANGE the version/revision/etc. number -- it always >seems to be version 1.0, and so the only way you can tell what "version" >you have is to look at the time/date stamp of the compiler, which is changed There is one simple reason for this behaviour. If they changed the version number with each bug they fixed, we would see Turbo C Version 56 real soon now :-) Seriously, people would insist on getting the latest version, of course. Borland would be forced to send an update to their dealers for every copy they sent them (or the dealers go mad). They would have some additional costs doing that. By the way, which is the latest version (date/time stamp) of Turbo C. Could you email your numbers directly to me? Best thanks in advance, ...urs UUCP: ...seismo!mcvax!cernvax!ethz!zu