ern@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Ernest J Obusek) (11/14/89)
Hello everyone. I currently have the Manx Aztec C v3.6a compiler and would like to upgrade to either the new Manx package (which I understand is not quite available yet) or the Lattice 5.x package. Which do you gurus think is the best choice? I mainly want a package that I can use to develop a large program with, and I would like ANSI C support, a debugger, and a profiler. Also, is it possible to upgrade a Manx package to Lattice? I thought I read about that somewhere. Thanks! Ernest ern@unix.cis.pitt.edu ern@cisunx.UUCP
davidm@uunet.UU.NET (David S. Masterson) (11/15/89)
I'm beginning to see word about an upgrade to the Manx Aztec C 3.6a compiler, yet (as a user of the compiler) I haven't heard about it from Manx (I moved recently, so maybe they've lost track of me). What are the capabilities of the upgrade? Anything on C++ with Manx C? Is it worth getting or is it time to switch (I'm not a heavy Amiga C programmer)? -- =================================================================== David Masterson Consilium, Inc. uunet!cimshop!davidm Mt. View, CA 94043 =================================================================== "If someone thinks they know what I said, then I didn't say it!"
"kosma@ALAN.LAAC-AI.Dialnet.Symbolics.COM"@alan.kahuna.decnet.lockheed.com (11/17/89)
Received: from BLAISE.LAAC-AI.Dialnet.Symbolics.COM by ALAN.LAAC-AI.Dialnet.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 6785; Wed 15-Nov-89 11:53:20 PST Date: Wed, 15 Nov 89 11:52 PST From: Montgomery Kosma <kosma@ALAN.LAAC-AI.Dialnet.Symbolics.COM> Subject: Re: Upgrading Aztec C To: "eagle::amiga-relay%udel.edu"@KAHUNA.LAAC-AI.Dialnet.Symbolics.COM In-Reply-To: <CIMSHOP!DAVIDM.89Nov14102744@uunet.UU.NET> Message-ID: <19891115195223.2.KOSMA@BLAISE.LAAC-AI.Dialnet.Symbolics.COM> What about new documentation for Aztec? I heard something about this before. What I got with the 3.6a/SDB package is one of the most poorly organized sets of documentation I've ever seen! Not fun when I was learning C and starting to program on the amiga...and it's *still* very hard to use (the docs, that is). monty kosma@alan.kahuna.decnet.lockheed.com
phorgan@cup.portal.com (Patrick John Horgan) (11/24/89)
One of the guys I work with has a Beta of the new Aztec C, and likes it...says they've done a lot with the optimization. On Aztec's bulletin board they say that all new docs will come with 5.0 and that 5.0 will be available before the end of the year! :)
w-stephm@microsoft.UUCP (Stephan Mueller) (11/27/89)
In article <24421@cup.portal.com> phorgan@cup.portal.com (Patrick John Horgan) writes: >One of the guys I work with has a Beta of the new Aztec C, and >likes it...says they've done a lot with the optimization. On Aztec's >bulletin board they say that all new docs will come with 5.0 and >that 5.0 will be available before the end of the year! :) So will the Manx folks be informing all of us registered owners of the upgrade? I KNOW I sent in my registration card when I bought 3.4. I'm still waiting for notification of the 3.6 upgrade... I can believe that since 3.6 was a relatively minor upgrade they may have decided not to let us all know, but 5.0 is a BIG upgrade so they will be telling us all all about it, right? Even those of us who live in Canada, right? Please? stephan(shlorp - the official sound of Populous, walkers and swamps);
manes@topsy.UUCP (Mark D. Manes) (11/27/89)
In article <9165@microsoft.UUCP>, w-stephm@microsoft.UUCP (Stephan Mueller) writes: > > So will the Manx folks be informing all of us registered owners of > the upgrade? I KNOW I sent in my registration card when I bought > 3.4. I'm still waiting for notification of the 3.6 upgrade... > > I can believe that since 3.6 was a relatively minor upgrade they may > have decided not to let us all know, but 5.0 is a BIG upgrade so > they will be telling us all all about it, right? Even those of us who > live in Canada, right? Please? > > stephan(shlorp - the official sound of Populous, walkers and swamps); I have sent in both registration cards (two were included in my package) since I thought the first was lost in the mail. I bought Manx when it was version 3.4 and I *never* did get my upgrade to 3.6. Tell me, what is the honest person supposed to do? I *needed* 3.6. Well, I am in a quandry now. I *like* the things I hear about Lettuce, err Lattice C and I think I would like to upgrade, however, I keep hoping that Manx will remember me... -mark=
bpearson@alias.UUCP (Brian Pearson) (11/29/89)
In article <266@topsy.UUCP> manes@topsy.UUCP (Mark D. Manes) writes: > >I have sent in both registration cards (two were included in my package) >since I thought the first was lost in the mail. I bought Manx when it >was version 3.4 and I *never* did get my upgrade to 3.6. > >Tell me, what is the honest person supposed to do? I *needed* 3.6. > >Well, I am in a quandry now. I *like* the things I hear about Lettuce, >err Lattice C and I think I would like to upgrade, however, I keep hoping >that Manx will remember me... > >-mark= I was one of the first on the block to own Manx C back when it was version 3.20. They (Aztec) informed me of 3.20a and I upgraded, they informed me of 3.4 and I upgraded, they informed me of 3.6 and I upgraded (do you see the trend). I'm assuming they will inform me of 5.0 and I'll upgrade. Surely I'm not the only person they have sent upgrade notices to! Manx has an upgrade policy that requires you to return your diskettes or return blanks and they will continue to notify you of upgrades. Did you send in your diskettes? Have you ever tried to call them? I have and received surprisingly good response. Let's not flame them if we haven't at least tried the obvious steps (call them) to correct the situation.
phorgan@cup.portal.com (Patrick John Horgan) (11/29/89)
I've gotten all of the updates through the years, but I've always
called THEM at the update number when I heard that one was coming...
call Manx updates (201)389-0290
And they'll be happy to help, (I still think it should be more
automagical)!
Patrick - Faster than a crashing Cray - Horgandjohnson@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson) (12/03/89)
In article <24558@cup.portal.com> phorgan@cup.portal.com (Patrick John Horgan) writes: >I've gotten all of the updates through the years, but I've always >called THEM at the update number when I heard that one was coming... >(I still think it should be more >automagical)! Same opinion here. Before I upgraded to 3.6a, I had no idea that it was available. I had heard rumors about SDB, but nothing about the compiler itself (and our USENET link was down for awhile). So I walked into the store one day, and lo and behold, there was 3.6a! So I waited a a couple weeks, assuming some sort of 3x5 card would arrive in the mail telling me how to upgrade, since most of the other products I owned sent notices every so often. Eventually I gave up and called some number hidden away in the manual. It doesn't seem that unreasonable that companies send out notices of new products. In fact, if more people here about the availability of upgrades, more people will get them (and in MANX's case, buy them), paying for the cost of the mailing. Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who don't read USENET and don't have a reliable Amiga store or user group close by, who have no way of knowing about upgrades, except through magazines or word of mouth. Darin Johnson djohnson@ucsd.edu
randy@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Randy Hammock) (12/05/89)
In article <7541@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> djohnson@beowulf.UCSD.EDU (Darin Johnson) writes: >In article <24558@cup.portal.com> phorgan@cup.portal.com (Patrick John Horgan) writes: >>I've gotten all of the updates through the years, but I've always >>called THEM at the update number when I heard that one was coming... >>(I still think it should be more >>automagical)! > >Same opinion here. Before I upgraded to 3.6a, I had no idea that it >was available. I had heard rumors about SDB, but nothing about the >compiler itself... I bought the Commercial version of The Manx Aztec C compiler which was to include one years free updates. The version I have is 3.40B. Version 3.6a came out very shortly after I bought the 3.40B version. I still have yet to receive any notification of any new versions becoming avalable. Needless to say, my year has long since gone by without any "FREE" upgrades being received. Gets one a bit P.O.d to pay the extra cost for the higher level of service and getting ZIP. -- AMIGA /// | randy@jato.jpl.nasa.gov Telos - Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA /// | hammock@mars.jpl.nasa.gov ** GALILEO launch in October 1989 ** \\\/// |-------------------------------------------------------------------- \XX/ | "If I wanted your opinions, I'd have given them to you!" - Mock
tdesjardins@spurge.waterloo.edu (Tim Desjardins) (12/06/89)
In article <2330@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> randy@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Randy Hammock) writes: [STUFF DELETED] ... >to include one years free updates. The version I have is 3.40B. Version >3.6a came out very shortly after I bought the 3.40B version. I still >have yet to receive any notification of any new versions becoming avalable. >Needless to say, my year has long since gone by without any "FREE" upgrades >being received. Gets one a bit P.O.d to pay the extra cost for the higher >level of service and getting ZIP. > Did you send your disks back, or even just blank disks. I've been getting my updates, since 3.20, all I had to do is send back my disks, ( I also had to subscribe to the update service once a year or so, more like 1.5 years ). They even sent me mail when my subscription was running out. I would say , in my opinion, that MANX has performed as well as any other software house that I've done business with. Have a nice day. Tim Desjardins. tdesjardins@spurge.waterloo.{edu|cdn}
hammock@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Randy Hammock) (12/06/89)
In article <19019@watdragon.waterloo.edu> tdesjardins@spurge.waterloo.edu (Tim Desjardins) writes: >Did you send your disks back, or even just blank disks. I've been getting my >updates, since 3.20, all I had to do is send back my disks, ( I also had to >subscribe to the update service once a year or so, more like 1.5 years ). >They even sent me mail when my subscription was running out. I would say >, in my opinion, that MANX has performed as well as any other software house >that I've done business with. Not to start an argument, other companies have at least notified me of updates to the software just from sending in my registration card (that's what they are for). Is it really my job to try and figure out what it is I have to do to get an upgrade when I'm promised that they are free? Is it my job to call them every month to find out if a new version is ready so that I can exercise my free upgrade option? By the way, I don't think the update service is free (could be wrong, it won't be the first time). It just seems they could send a card letting me know a new version is out. I didn't even know a new one was ready, just heard rumors. AMIGA /// | randy@jato.jpl.nasa.gov Telos - Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA /// | hammock@mars.jpl.nasa.gov ** GALILEO launch October 1989 ** \\\/// |-------------------------------------------------------------------- \XX/ | "If I wanted your opinions, I'd have given them to you!" - Mock
kim@uts.amdahl.com (Kim DeVaughn) (12/06/89)
In article <2339@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>, hammock@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Randy Hammock) writes: From postnews Tue Dec 5 17:50:16 1989 > Not to start an argument, other companies have at least notified me of > updates to the software just from sending in my registration card (that's > what they are for). Is it really my job to try and figure out what it is I > have to do to get an upgrade when I'm promised that they are free? Is it my > job to call them every month to find out if a new version is ready so that I > can exercise my free upgrade option? By the way, I don't think the update > service is free (could be wrong, it won't be the first time). It just seems > they could send a card letting me know a new version is out. I didn't even > know a new one was ready, just heard rumors. Guess it all just depends on the phase of the moon, or some such ... My own experience includes one update that was FedEx'd (woke me up on a Saturday, but that's OK ... and no, I didn't ask for this). The other came either USPS or UPS ... I can't recall. I have no gripes. /kim -- UUCP: kim@amdahl.amdahl.com or: {sun,decwrl,hplabs,pyramid,uunet,oliveb,ames}!amdahl!kim DDD: 408-746-8462 USPS: Amdahl Corp. M/S 249, 1250 E. Arques Av, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 BIX: kdevaughn GEnie: K.DEVAUGHN CIS: 76535,25
bpearson%alias.uucp@cunyvm.cuny.edu (12/06/89)
In article <266@topsy.UUCP> manes@topsy.UUCP (Mark D. Manes) writes: > >I have sent in both registration cards (two were included in my package) >since I thought the first was lost in the mail. I bought Manx when it >was version 3.4 and I *never* did get my upgrade to 3.6. > >Tell me, what is the honest person supposed to do? I *needed* 3.6. > >Well, I am in a quandry now. I *like* the things I hear about Lettuce, >err Lattice C and I think I would like to upgrade, however, I keep hoping >that Manx will remember me... > >-mark= I was one of the first on the block to own Manx C back when it was version 3.20. They (Aztec) informed me of 3.20a and I upgraded, they informed me of 3.4 and I upgraded, they informed me of 3.6 and I upgraded (do you see the trend). I'm assuming they will inform me of 5.0 and I'll upgrade. Surely I'm not the only person they have sent upgrade notices to! Manx has an upgrade policy that requires you to return your diskettes or return blanks and they will continue to notify you of upgrades. Did you send in your diskettes? Have you ever tried to call them? I have and received surprisingly good response. Let's not flame them if we haven't at least tried the obvious steps (call them) to correct the situation.
easu021@orion.oac.uci.edu (Daren Wolf) (12/07/89)
I have mixed feelings about Manx, but lets think about their policy of requiring you to return the disks for a minute. To me it is kind of rediculous for me to pay $500 for the commercial version of the compiler complete with 1 years free upgrades and then have to send in $5 worth of disks in order for them to come through? Am I out of line?
wfh58@leah.Albany.Edu (William F. Hammond) (12/07/89)
In article <3768@orion.cf.uci.edu>, easu021@orion.oac.uci.edu (Daren Wolf) writes: > I have mixed feelings about Manx, but lets think about their policy of > requiring you to return the disks for a minute. To me it is kind of > rediculous for me to pay $500 for the commercial version of the compiler > complete with 1 years free upgrades and then have to send in $5 worth of > disks in order for them to come through? Am I out of line? I am inclined to agree with you. I purchased Manx3.6 a year ago. I have received no notice of an upgrade. Is it definitely the case that they want original disks returned? If so, what is the rationale? If the disks are "proof" of ownership, what happens if they get lost in the mail? How much should the returned disks be insured for? If they are lost, would the carrier be obliged to pay more than a few dollars even if the disks are insured for hundreds? Another issue is this: if "A" purchases an item of software from a dealer, registers it with the dealer, uses it for six months, and then sells it to "B", is either "A" or "B" entitled to an upgrade? I think the smart policy for a seller is to provide upgrades to those who are registered, because it's the easiest consistent policy to enforce. A "proof of purchase" from an authorized dealer should suffice to cover a purchaser whose registration is lost. I'm not saying that the system of "original disks as proof of ownership" is unfair except insomuch as originals may disappear due to loss or theft. More to the point: IT IS A HASSLE TO MAIL IN THE DISKS. Because I procrastinate, I have never done so with any product in the past. Moreover, I have no problem with the current version; why should I bother to order the upgrade if it's going to be a hassle? Who knows -- I may turn out to have a problem with the upgrade. But we need to know definitely in the case of the hypothetical Manx upgrade whether they want the disks mailed back. Is this true? These are personal views. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ William F. Hammond Dept. of Mathematics & Statistics 518-442-4625 SUNYA, Albany, NY 12222 wfh58@leah.albany.edu wfh58@albnyvms.bitnet -------------------------------------------------------------------------
crs@cpsc6a.att.com (Chris (You mean I'm playing with REAL money?) Seaman) (12/07/89)
tdesjardins@spurge.waterloo.edu (Tim Desjardins) writes: < randy@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Randy Hammock) writes: < [STUFF DELETED] < >to include one years free updates. The version I have is 3.40B. Version < >3.6a came out very shortly after I bought the 3.40B version. I still < >have yet to receive any notification of any new versions becoming avalable. < >Needless to say, my year has long since gone by without any "FREE" upgrades < >being received. Gets one a bit P.O.d to pay the extra cost for the higher < >level of service and getting ZIP. < Did you send your disks back, or even just blank disks. I've been getting my < updates, since 3.20, all I had to do is send back my disks, ( I also had to < subscribe to the update service once a year or so, more like 1.5 years ). < They even sent me mail when my subscription was running out. I would say < , in my opinion, that MANX has performed as well as any other software house < that I've done business with. I found the "send us four blank disks or we'll take you off the FREE update list" mentality rather slimy. I am a registered owner of 3.6a, but it will be my last version of Manx, unless 5.0 is REALLY REALLY great (it had better slice, dice AND make wonderful julienne fries). I paid the ridiculous "professional" add-on fee when I purchased 3.4, and didn't find out there WAS a 3.6 until I heard it on the net (about a month before it hit the stores). It took more than a few phone calls and a significant amount of pleading to get them to send me the "free" update. I was also (rather tersely) informed that the source level debugger was NOT part of the deal. When the update finally arrived, I noticed the BAD photocopy (looked to be about 5th generation from the original, and off- center), which told me about sending in some blanks. Wasn't the money I had already given them for "professional" support enough to pay for four disks? On top of that, they double-shipped my update. I have a friend that has Lattice 5.02 (and just got the 5.04 bug-fix without having to ask for it), and it looks like a much more professional product. < Have a nice day. < Tim Desjardins. < tdesjardins@spurge.waterloo.{edu|cdn} Well, I'll try. You do the same. -- Chris (Insert phrase here) Seaman | ___-/^\-___ crs@cpsc6a.att.com <or> | //__--\O/--__\\ nI' yIyIn 'ej yIchep. ...!att!cpsc6a!crs | // \\ The Home of the Killer Smiley | `\ /'
easu021@orion.oac.uci.edu (Daren Wolf) (12/07/89)
>I'm not saying that the system of "original disks as proof of ownership" is >unfair except insomuch as originals may disappear due to loss or theft. If Manx was using the origonal disks as proff of ownership then I might not be as opposed to their policy as I am. The fact is that Manx is trying to recover the cost of the disks! They tell you that if you can't mail the origonals then just send 4 blank disks. >But we need to know definitely in the case of the hypothetical Manx upgrade >whether they want the disks mailed back. Is this true? It is definately true that Manx wants you to send in 4 disks each time you upgrade. They don't have to be the Manx origonal disks however. I have never done this, and I have never been notified of an upgrade. Since people on the net who have sent in their disks have been notified I am assuming that my refusal to send them disks keeps me off their mailing list. I contend that since I payed $500 for the commercial version of their product complete with 1 year free upgrades I shouldn't have to return the disks! I did call Manx today and got the following about their upgrade: Manx 5.0 Main new features include: 1. Full Ansi compatability 2. Built in optimizations this is a $75 upgrade. They are taking orders now. 1-800-221-0440 NJ 1-201-542-2121 and will be shipping sometime this month. As for me, since all my code is machine specific anyway, I don't really need ANSI. I will have to see how good the optimizer is and decide weither to go to Manx 5.0 or Lattice 5.04. I would prefere to stay with Manx since I have so many great AREXX utilities for CygnusEd / Manx and since I have just sent in my upgrade request for CygnusEd (they did mail me a notice saying $25 + origonal disk for new manual, vastly improved AREXX, ect...) -Jason-
barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) (12/08/89)
In article <3771@orion.cf.uci.edu> easu021@orion.oac.uci.edu (Jason Goldberg) writes: >It is definately true that Manx wants you to send in 4 disks each time you >upgrade. Oh? I have NEVER sent in my original disks to Manx. I just call them up, pay my $75.00 by credit card, and receive new disks in the mail. Dan //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ | Dan Barrett, Department of Computer Science Baltimore, MD 21218 | | INTERNET: barrett@cs.jhu.edu | UUCP: barrett@jhunix.UUCP | | COMPUSERVE: >internet:barrett@cs.jhu.edu | BITNET: barrett@jhuvms.bitnet | \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
klt@utgard.uucp (Ken Thompson) (12/09/89)
In article <3558@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> barrett@jhunix.UUCP (Dan Barrett) writes: > I have NEVER sent in my original disks to Manx. I just call >them up, pay my $75.00 by credit card, and receive new disks in the mail. > > Dan Same here. And it's always been ME that contacted THEM. klt -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: Not responsible for anything, anywhere, anytime. Like my address, for instance. It's really csusac!utgard!pyrgard!klt. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------