peter@aucs.UUCP (06/18/87)
I (finally) got my Turbo C; I'll give you my first impressions about the
package in general, and then discuss my experiences in converting a
somewhat large MicroSoft C program over to Turbo C.
Overall, the documentation is poor. The installation procedure was
scattered over several pages and the manuals appear to be poorly
indexed. I am going to slice mine and put them in three ring binders...
Some aspects of the installation are strange. For example, the default
configuration file for the command line compiler is TURBOC.CFG while
in the integrated environment it is TCCONFIG.TC. Furthermore, the
first one is a text file while the other is a binary file.
When the command line compiler loads up, it looks for TURBOC.CFG in
the current directory and if it doesn't find it, it then looks in
the "startup" directory (where TCC.EXE was found). To have this
capability with the integrated environment, it is necessary to run
a program (TCINST) which actually modifies the TC.EXE file--you
have to tell it where to look for TCCONFIG.TC if it doesn't find it
in the current directory. This all seems very strange to me. Fortunately,
I was able to install the whole package exactly to my liking, even though
the steps involved were not particularly logical.
I compiled the spreadsheet demo without problems, and was certainly
impressed by the speed. I've been using MicroSoft C lately, which is
good but VERY slow. My current project is a 5000 line terminal
emulator (tvi955). It isn't complete yet, and I debated whether the
conversion to Turbo C would be reasonable at this stage. As an
experiment, I decided to give it a quick try, and if it proved too
time consuming, not bother. Well, an hour and a half later, the
program was converted!
There were essentially no problems. The only changes needed
in the C code were to change the names of two include
files (memory.h to mem.h and malloc.h to alloc.h), and change the
calls to inp and outp to inportb and outportb. The compiler also
found a bug which had gone undetected--I had the statement "memx == 0;"
and it told me it didn't do anything. Of course, I really meant "="
not "==". The only major problem was with the assembler module (another
500 lines; interrupt stuff mainly). I had to convert certain symbols
(_TEXT, _DATA, _BSS) to upper case and invoke masm with a /mx switch
to make it case-sensitive (or I could have told Turbo C to compile
externals as case-insensitive). Other than that, the assembler code
remained unchanged.
I did the whole conversion in the integrated environment (except for
the assembler). I plan to convert the assembler module all to in-line
(even the interrupt stuff). I also plan never to use MicroSoft C again.
My general impressions? *Impressive!* Turbo C is the best development
system I've used on a PC (it looks strangely like LightSpeed C on my
Mac SE :-) ).
I benchmarked Turbo C against MicroSoft C using my emulator. The program
is 5200 lines, but when all include files are considered, amounts to
14000 lines of code that must be compiled. Under MicroSoft C, it took
17 minutes to compile and link the complete system (I ate my breakfast,
read the morning paper, and shaved while I waited :-) ); under Turbo C
in the integrated enviroment (I haven't tried compiling the whole thing
under the command line package yet), it took 3 and a half minutes.
'Nuff said.
Peter W. Steele UUCP : {seismo|watmath|utai|garfield}!dalcs!aucs!Peter
Acadia University BITNET : {Peter|pws}@Acadia
Wolfville, N.S. Internet : {Peter|pws}%Acadia.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Canada B0P 1X0 PHONEnet : (902) 542-2201x121gardner@kodak.UUCP (dick gardner) (06/19/87)
In article <381@aucs.UUCP> peter@aucs.UUCP (Peter Steele) writes: >I (finally) got my Turbo C; I'll give you my first impressions about the > > >I benchmarked Turbo C against MicroSoft C using my emulator. The program >is 5200 lines, but when all include files are considered, amounts to >14000 lines of code that must be compiled. Under MicroSoft C, it took >17 minutes to compile and link the complete system (I ate my breakfast, >read the morning paper, and shaved while I waited :-) ); under Turbo C >in the integrated enviroment (I haven't tried compiling the whole thing >under the command line package yet), it took 3 and a half minutes. > >'Nuff said. ^^^^^^^^^| |--> Really? You don't mention anything about executing your compiled program. Forget the size differences and execution speed for now, how will you de-bug your program? With MSC & Codeview, it's really easy. How about Turbo now? Are you going to insert printf's in your code and re-run it thru your fast compiler, or are you going to use Codeview without symbols and try to de-bug the program at assembler level? How many of the 15 minutes you saved in the compile stage will you use up getting the program running? Having bought MSC v4.0 already, there's not much of an investment in buying Turbo C later, but who in their right mind would buy Turbo C first, and THEN MSC in order to get Codeview to de-bug the Turbo program? In my humble opinion, Codeview makes other C compilers obsolete, regardless of compile speed. De-bug speed is much important,I think. Now, if other compilers can generate Microsoft-compatible symbols, then that situation changes. Likewise, if a high-level de-bugger is available comparable to Codeview, that would also change my thinking. Probably still not " 'nuff said." =#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=# Dick Gardner -- Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, New York 14650 Phone: (716) 477-1002 UUCP: {allegra,seismo}!rochester!kodak!gardner "Research is what I do when I don't know what I'm doing" =#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#
gleicher@duke.UUCP (06/20/87)
As a user of MSC 4.0, and a recent purchaser of Turbo C, I have to admit, I doubt I'll run MSC too much any more. True CodeView is nice, but being able to compile in a reasonable time (My hard disk is slow so the improvement is more than 4X for the program I'm working on). is worth more than the debugger. What I'd really love to see would be DBX on a PC (with a better user interface). Codeview is a little clunky at viewing complex datatypes. quite honestly, I don't think I'd pay $300 for it (the price of MSC). Especially because the one time I really needed it, it wouldn't work because there wasn't enough memory. I would think it would be possible to find a way of using TurboC with Codeview (or some such debugger). TurboC will put line numbers into the code. I haven't experimented with it. (any comments?) TurboC is such an excellent product and such a value that I'm sure that it will sell well, and the huge demand for a good source level dubugger will be met by someone enterprising. One other note, Turbo C is so fast, that I include C++ style declarations for all my functions in my headers, which drastically reduces the number of stupid mistakes in my program. It's other neat little checkers do the same. The place where I found CodeView most useful (why is that variable becoming zero at the head of the for loop :-). Michael Lee Gleicher (-: If it looks like I'm wandering Duke University (-: around like I'm lost . . . E-Mail: gleicher@cs.duke.edu)(or uucp (-: Or P.O.B. 5899 D.S., Durham, NC 27706 (-: It's because I am!
leder@ihlpm.ATT.COM (Leder) (06/22/87)
In article <875@kodak.UUCP>, gardner@kodak.UUCP (dick gardner) writes: > In article <381@aucs.UUCP> peter@aucs.UUCP (Peter Steele) writes: > >I (finally) got my Turbo C; I'll give you my first impressions about the > > > > [ text removed ] > > > >'Nuff said. > ^^^^^^^^^| > |--> Really? > > You don't mention anything about executing your compiled program. Forget > the size differences and execution speed for now, how will you de-bug your > program? With MSC & Codeview, it's really easy. How about Turbo now? The unfortunate reality of the situation is that I have used codeview so infrequently because it requires another lllooonnnggg cccooommmppiiilllee if I hadn't figured on using it in the first place. > Are you going to insert printf's in your code and re-run it thru your fast > compiler ... This does seem like a reasonable thing to do. Have you tried turbo C or are you talking from the land of inexperience. > Having bought MSC v4.0 already, there's not much of an investment in buying > Turbo C later, ... THIS is the point! Turbo C is not much of an investment for a lot of compiler. > but who in their right mind would buy Turbo C first, and > THEN MSC in order to get Codeview to de-bug the Turbo program? You are absolutely correct. No one in their right mind would bother to buy MSC just for Codeview, especially when you can't get around to debugging the code because it takes so long to compile. By the time the thing is compiled, you can't remember what you were testing in the first place. One thing that I can say about the MSC compiler is that it is not prejudicial about the size of one's code. It ALWAYS TAKES AN INORDINATE AMOUNT OF TIME TO COMPILE. I would rather use a compiler that allowed me to "stay on a roll" when I am debugging and in touch with the actions of the program than have the fancy debugger. After all, how much credit does the debugger get for your ability to think. I think that I could add all the printfs that I would want and recompile many times in the time that it would take you to compile with MSC. The extra compiles that I would get (per one of your MSC compiles) easily gives me more time to pay attention to what I am doing instead of twiddling my thumbs. I can see how my changes affect the code!! > > Probably still not " 'nuff said." > Compilers are like religion, aren't they. Bob Leder - just expressing my opinion and I know its right because its mine.
peter@aucs.UUCP (06/25/87)
To continue...
>compilers are like religion ...
Apparently so. In my original posting on this subject, I certainly
didn't mean to upset anyone who uses and likes Microsoft C. After all,
I did say Microsoft C was good. But I also said it was slow. My
experiences so far with Turbo C have been very satisfactory and
as far as CodeView is concerned, when I first started using MicroSoft
C, I tried out CodeView, thought it was cute but mostly useless for
large applications, and have never used it again. I tend to program
in a modular way, adding small pieces of code at a time. Before I compile,
I visually inspect the code VERY carefully (I think this is a result
of being an assembly programmer in my early years), and then testing
it. If it doesn't work, I visually inspect the code again and quite
often find the bug. If I don't, I add some appropriate printf statements
and tried another recompilation and execution, and I usually find the
problem during this iteration (although not always). That is why I like
TurboC--it compiles so quickly it allows me to make several iterations
like this in very little time. I find this technique of debugging much
more effective than using a limited tool like CodeView. But these are
only my opinions, not a personal attack on anyone who uses and likes
CodeView. So PLEASE, keep your hackles down...
BTW, have you seen the ads for Microsoft QuickC/C 5.0? Sounds like
a good competitor for TurboC...
Peter W. Steele UUCP : {seismo|watmath|utai|garfield}!dalcs!aucs!Peter
Acadia University BITNET : {Peter|pws}@Acadia
Wolfville, N.S. Internet : {Peter|pws}%Acadia.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Canada B0P 1X0 PHONEnet : (902) 542-2201x121
PS: I found a bug in TurboC's memchr routine. It failed for me in one
instance where it should have found the byte I was looking for. Has
anyone come across a similar problem?sbanner1@uvicctr.UUCP (S. John Banner) (06/25/87)
In article <9797@duke.cs.duke.edu> gleicher@duke.UUCP (Michael Gleicher) writes: >As a user of MSC 4.0, and a recent purchaser of Turbo C, I have to >admit, I doubt I'll run MSC too much any more. True CodeView is nice, >but being able to compile in a reasonable time (My hard disk is slow >so the improvement is more than 4X for the program I'm working on). >is worth more than the debugger. >I would think it would be possible to find a way of using TurboC with >Codeview (or some such debugger). TurboC will put line numbers into >the code. I haven't experimented with it. (any comments?) I have played with it, Just compile with the -y option, link using MicroSoft's linker, and the /codeview option, and you are off to the races so to speak. This doesn't give you the variable info, but you have source level tracing/breakpoints, etc, Turbo's libraries have Symbols in them (quite unlike MicroSoft's), though they are not really that useful, I think they are just base addresses for branching, and with the assembler listings in the code, it is not too hard to figure out what machine locations to watch, to use the assembler style watchpoints, instead of symbolic variables. It is not perfect, but it is pretty good (though I do like the Idea of a PC version of DBX). Have Fun, S. John Banner ...!uw-beaver!uvicctr!sol!sbanner1 ...!ubc-vision!uvicctr!sol!sbanner1 ccsjb@uvvm sbanner1@sol.UVIC.CDN
toma@killer.UUCP (Tom Armistead) (06/27/87)
In article <1206@ihlpm.ATT.COM>, leder@ihlpm.ATT.COM (Leder) writes: > In article <875@kodak.UUCP>, gardner@kodak.UUCP (dick gardner) writes: > > In article <381@aucs.UUCP> peter@aucs.UUCP (Peter Steele) writes: > > >I (finally) got my Turbo C; I'll give you my first impressions about the > > > > > > [ text removed ] > > > > > >'Nuff said. > > ^^^^^^^^^| > > |--> Really? ^^^^^^^ |-> Double Really... I have Used MSC 4.0, and now am a converted Turbo C user. One has to admit the usefullness of CodeView, one also has to admit (if you are a MSC user) the fact that MSC is to slow to be really practicle for anything other than LARGE projects, due to slowness of the MSC compiler, espically if one is bound to a Floppy only PC. Turbo C is the obvious tool of choice for MOST people given the info above. With one exception as has been stated in several recent postings about the lack of a debugger, SYMDEB can be used, but is really restrictive, no ability to work with local variables is only one prob there. So, this is my solution. I bought the MIX C Works several months back, mainly because of compile speed. I wrote and debugged the code under MIX, then compiled the final version under MSC 4.0. Now that I have Turbo C, I have sold my copy of MSC 4.0, for about $100.00. I now write my pgms in Turbo C and debug them under the MIX C debugger 'C trace'. There a few restraints on code size (MIX will only work with SMALL memory models, it makes .COM files). So I debug a module at a time. C trace is a really nice debugger (compareable to Codeview) and here's the wonderful part. MIX C sells for $39.95, and C trace sells for $39.95, SO, for about $80.00 you get something to debug C pgms with. Take the money you made selling MSC 4.0 and if you work it right, you will be able to buy Turbo C, MIX C and C trace. You can call MIX at (214) 783-6001 and they'll tell you all about there product. Tom ------- UUCP: ihnp4\ \killer!toma infoswx!convex!dj3b1/ Tom Armistead disclaimer: My affiliation with any of the above mention companies is from a users point of view ONLY!!!
cy@ashtate.UUCP (Cy Shuster) (07/06/87)
In article <1060@killer.UUCP> toma@killer.UUCP (Tom Armistead) writes: >Now that I have Turbo C, I have sold my copy of MSC 4.0, >for about $100.00. >Take the money you made selling MSC 4.0 and if you work it right, you >will be able to buy Turbo C, MIX C and C trace. > >Tom >------- >UUCP: ihnp4\ > \killer!toma > infoswx!convex!dj3b1/ >Tom Armistead Just a reminder: most software is not *sold* to you, but *licensed* for your use only. The MS License Agreement reads: "As the LICENSEE, you own the magnetic or other media on which the SOFTWARE is originally or subse- quently recorded or fixed, but Microsoft retains title and ownership of the SOFTWARE recorded on the original disk and all subsequent copies... In no event may you transfer, assign, rent, lease, sell, or otherwise dispose of the SOFTWARE..." --Cy-- cy@ashtate.UUCP
todd@uhccux.UUCP (07/08/87)
In article <305@ashtate.UUCP> cy@ashtate.UUCP (Cy Shuster) writes: >Just a reminder: most software is not *sold* to you, but *licensed* for >your use only. The MS License Agreement reads: "As the LICENSEE, you own >the magnetic or other media on which the SOFTWARE is originally or subse- >quently recorded or fixed, but Microsoft retains title and ownership of the >SOFTWARE recorded on the original disk and all subsequent copies... In no >event may you transfer, assign, rent, lease, sell, or otherwise dispose of >the SOFTWARE..." The statement above is not correct... I just pulled out my MSC 4.0 license agreement. In paragraph three (3), it says: OTHER RESTRICTIONS: You may not rent or lease the COMPILER, but you may transfer it on a permanent basis if the person receiving it agrees to the term of this Agreement. The way I read this is that a MSC 4.0 licensee CANNOT rent or lease the compiler, however the person CAN give it away or sell it if the receiver agrees to the license agreement that accompanies the compiler. --todd -- Todd Ogasawara, U. of Hawaii Center for Teaching Excellence UUCP: {ihnp4,seismo,ucbvax,dcdwest}!sdcsvax!nosc!uhccux!todd ARPA: uhccux!todd@nosc.MIL INTERNET: todd@uhccux.UHCC.HAWAII.EDU
blevins@hpccc.UUCP (07/09/87)
Cy: Your reading this response indicates your acceptance of the fact that everything I say is true. ...everything I say is a lie...everything I say is a lie... :^) I think it's really neat how companies like A-T and Microsoft have managed to get these little "opening indicates acceptance of terms" past the American software-buying public. If I have bought a disk of XYZsheet for $250 and later decide I don't want it, you can bet your copy protection scheme that I'll sell it if I can. So sue me. dB hplabs!hpccc!blevins opinions above are my own only. Naw, I COULDN'T have said that... did I?
keeshu@nikhefk.UUCP (07/09/87)
In article <305@ashtate.UUCP> cy@ashtate.UUCP (Cy Shuster) writes: #Just a reminder: most software is not *sold* to you, but *licensed* for #your use only. The MS License Agreement reads: "As the LICENSEE, you own #the magnetic or other media on which the SOFTWARE is originally or subse- #quently recorded or fixed, but Microsoft retains title and ownership of the #SOFTWARE recorded on the original disk and all subsequent copies... In no #event may you transfer, assign, rent, lease, sell, or otherwise dispose of #the SOFTWARE..." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ # #--Cy-- cy@ashtate.UUCP Does that mean I can't do a DEL *.* on a MicroSoft product disk and legally answer Yes when I get the question Are You Sure <Y/N> ?? :-) -- Kees | UUCP : keeshu@nikhefk.uucp or {[wherever]!seismo}!mcvax!nikhefk!keeshu | BITNET : keeshu@hasara5.bitnet | FIDO : kees huyser at 508/15 (Opus_MacSaga) or 500/11 (HCC_Amsterdam_1) | SNAIL : kees huyser, NIKHEF-K, PO Box 4395, 1009 AJ Amsterdam, Netherlands |----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | As official spokesman for the Institute is is my privilege to announce that | the board of governors of the Institute have withdrawn my privilege of being | the official spokesman for the Institute.
mjr@osiris.UUCP (Marcus Ranum) (07/09/87)
In article <305@ashtate.UUCP>, cy@ashtate.UUCP (Cy Shuster) writes: > > Just a reminder: most software is not *sold* to you, but *licensed* for > your use only. The MS License Agreement reads: "As the LICENSEE, you own > the magnetic or other media on which the SOFTWARE is originally or subse- > quently recorded or fixed, but Microsoft retains title and ownership of the > SOFTWARE recorded on the original disk and all subsequent copies... In no > event may you transfer, assign, rent, lease, sell, or otherwise dispose of > the SOFTWARE..." YOU CAN'T EVEN THROW THE SHIT AWAY !!!! FLAME ON !!! That's just De Jure! The law is stupid! Suppose I get software from Microsoft. I use it a year. I don't own it. I'm not renting it. Suppose I don't like it after a year. Well, since it's still Microsoft's why can't I ask them to take it back and pro-rate the original cost VS the amount of time I could have used the software, and please refund the difference ? Absurd ! Let's face it, the logic behind software copyright law is flawed. It's stupid. It's as braindead as can be, and staking people's fortunes on it is even more stupid. Revolt ! Strike back against the Morons ! Everyone ignores the stupid law aynhow, and sooner or later, if enough people admit it, the law will have to change ! --mjr(); software anarchist. -- If they think you're crude, go technical; if they think you're technical, go crude. I'm a very technical boy. So I get as crude as possible. These days, though, you have to be pretty technical before you can even aspire to crudeness... -Johnny Mnemonic
tad@killer.UUCP (Tad Marko) (07/10/87)
In article <305@ashtate.UUCP>, cy@ashtate.UUCP (Cy Shuster) writes: > In article <1060@killer.UUCP> toma@killer.UUCP (Tom Armistead) writes: > >Now that I have Turbo C, I have sold my copy of MSC 4.0, > >for about $100.00. > >Take the money you made selling MSC 4.0 and if you work it right, you > >will be able to buy Turbo C, MIX C and C trace. > > > >Tom > >------- > >UUCP: ihnp4\ > > \killer!toma > > infoswx!convex!dj3b1/ > >Tom Armistead > > Just a reminder: most software is not *sold* to you, but *licensed* for > your use only. The MS License Agreement reads: "As the LICENSEE, you own > the magnetic or other media on which the SOFTWARE is originally or subse- > quently recorded or fixed, but Microsoft retains title and ownership of the > SOFTWARE recorded on the original disk and all subsequent copies... In no > event may you transfer, assign, rent, lease, sell, or otherwise dispose of > the SOFTWARE..." > > --Cy-- cy@ashtate.UUCP (First of all, I know this is in the wrong group, but I want to leave it where it started.) Yeah, but... Personally I have a problem with this policy. What purpose does this have? If I buy a copyrighted book, I am free to resell it whenever I want. Why not software? It is a valuable piece of merchandise like anything else, and selling does not create an illicit copy. Ford does not sell cars that only the original buyer may own. A program is no less a piece of property than a car. Unless I misunderstand, one could legally sell his or her copy of Turbo C under the license agreement. Why can't other companies adopt such a simple and sensical policy? I think such a policy is rude, obnoxious, and just plain wrong. Unfortunately, I must put up with several pieces of software with such license policies because I need the software. GACK! I feel better now. Tad -- Tad Marko ..!ihnp4!killer!tad || ..!ihnp4!alamo!infoswx!ntvax!tad UNIX Connection BBS AT&T 3B2 North Texas State U. VAX 11/780 "Hi there!" -- Peter Gabriel in "Big Time"
mlinar@poisson.usc.edu (Mitch Mlinar) (07/10/87)
In article <305@ashtate.UUCP> cy@ashtate.UUCP (Cy Shuster) writes: > >Just a reminder: most software is not *sold* to you, but *licensed* for >your use only. The MS License Agreement reads: "As the LICENSEE, you own >the magnetic or other media on which the SOFTWARE is originally or subse- >quently recorded or fixed, but Microsoft retains title and ownership of the >SOFTWARE recorded on the original disk and all subsequent copies... In no >event may you transfer, assign, rent, lease, sell, or otherwise dispose of >the SOFTWARE..." Cy, you are either badly mis-informed or have bad eyesight. Thoroughly read the Microsoft agreement and you will see there is nothing that prevents you from selling it, erasing it, throwing it out, etc. There is MUCH judicial precedence that if you purchase an item, you can do what you wish with it (within other laws, of course). Check with your Ashton-Tate lawyer, and have her/him check two separate cases of xxxx vs Ford (regarding a Pinto xxxx owned) and yyyy vs TI (HP?) - both from 15 years or more ago - if s/he is THAT rusty. (Sorry I can't give you case #'s, I am not a lawyer by profession, just have and continue to do a LOT of computer work with them.) I have read Ashton-Tate's old agreement - it does not claim this either. It is well known (among lawyers who are computer oriented anyway), that most of the license agreements would crumble under serious judicial scrutiny. I have examples where computer company 'x' attempted to block 'y' from selling product 'z' (originally developed by 'x') for some reason or another, and failed. (I was involved in several of them as a consultant.) I would be happy to put you in touch with my lawyer to set you straight :-) :-) -Mitch
toma@killer.UUCP (Tom Armistead) (07/10/87)
> In article <305@ashtate.UUCP>, cy@ashtate.UUCP (Cy Shuster) writes: > > In article <1060@killer.UUCP> toma@killer.UUCP (Tom Armistead) writes: > > >Now that I have Turbo C, I have sold my copy of MSC 4.0, > > >for about $100.00. > > >Take the money you made selling MSC 4.0 and if you work it right, you > > >will be able to buy Turbo C, MIX C and C trace. > > > > > >Tom > > >------- > > >UUCP: ihnp4\ > > > \killer!toma > > > infoswx!convex!dj3b1/ > > >Tom Armistead > > > > Just a reminder: most software is not *sold* to you, but *licensed* for > > your use only. The MS License Agreement reads: "As the LICENSEE, you own > > [ text deleted ] Well, I was the one who originally posted this, so here I go... ( Asbestos suit on) I did not the license agreement to MSC, I sold the magnetic media and the paper in the manuals for an unGodly amount and that's that! I think that somewhere in the legal system that one would find that this could be gotten around as in the above stated case. And that if I did something Illegal in selling this Plastic and Paper product (and somehow forgot to erase the gunk contained upon them, Let 'em come and get me!!!) Something else that I thought kind of interesting, when I sent back my license agreement to MS, I scratched aout quite a few lines on the agreement and sent a signed copy of that agreement back to them at leaste a year and ahalf ago and never heard a word from them... ( Asbestos suit of, lawyer hired...) Disclaimer: these are my words, thoughts and keystrokes, influenced by powers uncontrolable by man or any other earthly force. Tom UUCP: ihnp4\ \killer!toma infoswx!convex!dj3b1/ Tom Armistead
toma@tekgvs.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) (07/10/87)
KIn article <305@ashtate.UUCP> cy@ashtate.UUCP (Cy Shuster) writes: > >Just a reminder: most software is not *sold* to you, but *licensed* for >your use only. The MS License Agreement reads: "As the LICENSEE, you own >the magnetic or other media on which the SOFTWARE is originally or subse- >quently recorded or fixed, but Microsoft retains title and ownership of the >SOFTWARE recorded on the original disk and all subsequent copies... In no >event may you transfer, assign, rent, lease, sell, or otherwise dispose of >the SOFTWARE..." KWell, I have an unopened copy here, and there is no "shrinkwrap" license. And we all know about the printed ones in the package... KExcept for the shrinkwrap license, in states where it is valid, I can't imagine any being valid except for those that are signed. There are two ways to do this: K1. To get any support, you send in a registration card which you sign as having accepted the terms of the license agreement. Of course this only works for products where the manufacturer provides support. K2. To get the product you have to sign and return a license agreement first. In this day and age of mass marketing, this type of arrangement has all but disappeared, but when I bought Wordstar in 1980, that is what I had to do. The Wordstar agreement was also facinating in that you agreed to pay the bounty Micropro gave for turning in pirated software-- If someone got a pirated copy and sent it to Micropro, they would send that person a free licensed copy and charge the person who purchased the serial numbered copy! Tom Almy (No longer a Wordstar user)
cy@ashtate.UUCP (Cy Shuster) (07/10/87)
In article <668@uhccux.UUCP> todd@uhccux.UUCP (The Perplexed Wiz) writes: >In article <305@ashtate.UUCP> cy@ashtate.UUCP (Cy Shuster) writes: >>Just a reminder: most software is not *sold* to you, but *licensed* for >>your use only. The MS License Agreement reads:... > >The statement above is not correct... >I just pulled out my MSC 4.0 license agreement. In paragraph three (3), >it says: > OTHER RESTRICTIONS: You may not rent or lease the COMPILER, > but you may transfer it on a permanent basis if the person > receiving it agrees to the term of this Agreement. With respect to the question of "What is the MS license agreement for its C compiler?" I stand corrected. Even though I tried to stick to Cardinal Net Rule 1 (don't pass misinformation) by quoting their agree- ment... I quoted the wrong one. The broader topic of "Are shrink wrap agreements enforceable?" is a dead horse not worth rebeating. Disclaimer: these are my own opinions. --Cy-- UUCP: ...!seismo!scgvaxd!ashtate!cy [Now we have to append *and* prepend filler lines! Progress??]
platt@emory.UUCP (07/11/87)
In article <305@ashtate.UUCP> cy@ashtate.UUCP (Cy Shuster) writes: >In article <1060@killer.UUCP> toma@killer.UUCP (Tom Armistead) writes: >>Now that I have Turbo C, I have sold my copy of MSC 4.0, >>for about $100.00. > >Just a reminder: most software is not *sold* to you, but *licensed* for >your use only. The MS License Agreement reads: "As the LICENSEE, you own >the magnetic or other media on which the SOFTWARE is originally or subse- >quently recorded or fixed, but Microsoft retains title and ownership of the >SOFTWARE recorded on the original disk and all subsequent copies... In no >event may you transfer, assign, rent, lease, sell, or otherwise dispose of >the SOFTWARE..." > >--Cy-- cy@ashtate.UUCP I feel the need to correct your stand on the standard Microsoft agreement. It states: 1) Grant of License. Microsoft grants to you the right to use this copy of a Microsoft language compiler program (the "compiler") and to distribute your programs created using the compiler. You may not network the compiler or otherwise use it on more than one computer (i. e. a single CPU) at the same time. The compiler is owned by Microsoft and is protected by US copywrite laws... 2)... (concerns the distribution of programs developed with Microsoft compilers) 3) Other restrictions. You may not rent or lease the compiler, but you MAY TRANSFER IT ON A PERMINANT BASIS if the person receiving it agrees to the terms of this agreement. 4)... (You can't blame Microsoft if you are sued for a program you sold and developed with Microsoft software). There was a big ruckus about software developers selling products developed with MS compilers (Microsoft's license agreement wouldn't let you sell things developed with their libraries). Since then, several things have changed, but you need to acknowlege them in your documentation and in the program id header at the start of execution. You may also sell your programs as they become obsolete due to upgrades or otherwise. Dan
allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (07/12/87)
As quoted from <305@ashtate.UUCP> by cy@ashtate.UUCP (Cy Shuster): +--------------- | Just a reminder: most software is not *sold* to you, but *licensed* for | your use only. The MS License Agreement reads: "As the LICENSEE, you own | the magnetic or other media on which the SOFTWARE is originally or subse- | quently recorded or fixed, but Microsoft retains title and ownership of the | SOFTWARE recorded on the original disk and all subsequent copies... In no | event may you transfer, assign, rent, lease, sell, or otherwise dispose of | the SOFTWARE..." +--------------- Just what I needed: yet ANOTHER reason to avoid MS products. *This* is why I learned how to write my own programs. -- [Copyright 1987 Brandon S. Allbery, all rights reserved] \ ncoast 216 781 6201 [Redistributable only if redistribution is subsequently permitted.] \ 2400 bd. Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc and comp.binaries.ibm.pc {{ames,harvard,mit-eddie}!necntc,{well,ihnp4}!hoptoad,cbosgd}!ncoast!allbery <<The opinions herein are those of my cat, therefore they must be correct!>>
allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (07/12/87)
Addendum: As quoted from <2863@ncoast.UUCP> by allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery): +--------------- | Just what I needed: yet ANOTHER reason to avoid MS products. *This* is why | I learned how to write my own programs. +--------------- Same thing goes for Ashton-Tate and Lotus; I use the shareware Qubecalc if I want a spreadsheet (rarely) and my recent request for info about B+trees was to allow me to assemble a DBMS of my own.... for now I use Unify on a mini. -- [Copyright 1987 Brandon S. Allbery, all rights reserved] \ ncoast 216 781 6201 [Redistributable only if redistribution is subsequently permitted.] \ 2400 bd. Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc and comp.binaries.ibm.pc {{ames,harvard,mit-eddie}!necntc,{well,ihnp4}!hoptoad,cbosgd}!ncoast!allbery <<The opinions herein are those of my cat, therefore they must be correct!>>
stevem@fai.UUCP (Steve Minneman) (07/21/87)
In article <1119@killer.UUCP> toma@killer.UUCP (Tom Armistead) writes: >> In article <305@ashtate.UUCP>, cy@ashtate.UUCP (Cy Shuster) writes: >> > In article <1060@killer.UUCP> toma@killer.UUCP (Tom Armistead) writes: >> > >Now that I have Turbo C, I have sold my copy of MSC 4.0, >> > >for about $100.00. >> > >Take the money you made selling MSC 4.0 and if you work it right, you >> > >will be able to buy Turbo C, MIX C and C trace. >> > > >> > >Tom ... >> > Just a reminder: most software is not *sold* to you, but *licensed* for >> > your use only. The MS License Agreement reads: "As the LICENSEE, you own >> > [ text deleted ] > >Well, I was the one who originally posted this, so here I go... >( Asbestos suit on) >I did not the license agreement to MSC, I sold the magnetic media and the paper >in the manuals for an unGodly amount and that's that! That's entirely legal -- the buyer just has no license, and therefore has no right to USE the software. >... > >Something else that I thought kind of interesting, when I sent back my license >agreement to MS, I scratched aout quite a few lines on the agreement and >sent a signed copy of that agreement back to them at leaste a year and ahalf >ago and never heard a word from them... > Doesn't mean a thing. Actually signing and sending back the license is not required. Note that the package containing the software was shrink-wrapped and labeled with the words "By opening this package, you accept the terms and conditions of the license agreement," or words to that effect. -- Steven A. Minneman (Fujitsu America Inc, San Jose, Ca) !seismo!amdahl!fai!stevem The best government is no government at all.
alang@masscomp.UUCP (Alan Groupe) (07/23/87)
Don't rag on cy@ashtate so much. A-T's latest attempt to restrict legitimate
use of their product has gone too far and should actually backfire if tested.
Consider, for example, a person who somehow comes into possesion of a
non-paid-for copy of dBASE III+. When he first runs the program, he is
greeted with the standard dBASE III+ "warning":
You may use the dBASE III PLUS software and printed materials in
the dBASE II PLUS software package under the terms of the dBASE
III PLUS Software License Agreement. In summary, Ashton-Tate
grants you a paid-up, non-transferable, personal license to use
dBASE III PLUS on one microcomputer or workstation. You do not
become the owner of the package, nor do you have the right to
copy or alter the software or printed materials. You are legally
accountable for any violation of the License Agreement or of
copyright, trademark, or trade secret laws.
If carefully read, this states that A-T legitimizes the pirated copy in
exchange for agreement not to propagate it further. Of course, this could
be their intention, but somehow I doubt it.
Alan Groupeejablow@dasys1.UUCP (Eric Robert Jablow) (07/26/87)
In article <634@fai.UUCP> stevem@fai.UUCP (Steve Minneman) writes: > > [Much deleted] > >Doesn't mean a thing. Actually signing and sending back the license is not >required. Note that the package containing the software was shrink-wrapped >and labeled with the words "By opening this package, you accept the terms and >conditions of the license agreement," or words to that effect. > Actually, shrink-wrap "licenses" have been ruled invalid in many cases all across the country. According to the law in almost every state is a provision making the Unified Commercial Code (UCC) the law. Violations of the UCC can render licenses and contracts invalid. These shrink-wrap "licenses" haved been ruled to violate the code, much the same as a warranty limitation not fully disclosed before purchase, or any other unusual contract provision. The buyer must be given the chance to inspect the material unencumbered by such unconsciable limitations. If the UCC is violated, the contract reverts to the state's standard rules. I am not a lawyer; I would therefore appreciate a lawyer's commenting on this matter. >The best government is no government at all. That comment should be discussed in talk.politics.theory, same as the "society" discussions in the Jury Duty articles. -- Eric Jablow {allegra,philabs,cmcl2}!phri\ Big Electric Cat Public Unix {bellcore,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!ejablow New York, NY, USA Copyright 1987 First Category Press