ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (07/27/89)
If you have a registered copy of THINK C ( a.k.a. LSC) 2.x, but have not upgraded to 3.x, can you upgrade directly to 4.0? How much would that cost? Robert ------ ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu ------ generic disclaimer: all my opinions are mine
ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (07/27/89)
In article <4663@tank.uchicago.edu>, I wrote... >If you have a registered copy of THINK C ( a.k.a. LSC) 2.x, but have not >upgraded to 3.x, can you upgrade directly to 4.0? How much would that cost? > Well, I finally got through to Symantec customer service (not too hard once they answered the phone, but it rang a _lot_ :->). Anyway, according to the very polite person I spoke to on the phone, it only costs $69 to upgrade from 2.x to 4.0, same as it costs to upgrade from 3.x. Is this right?? If so, that's a _really_ good deal! Way to go Symantec! Robert ------ ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu ------ generic disclaimer: all my opinions are mine
siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) (07/27/89)
In article <4663@tank.uchicago.edu> ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >If you have a registered copy of THINK C ( a.k.a. LSC) 2.x, but have not >upgraded to 3.x, can you upgrade directly to 4.0? How much would that cost? > $69. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rich Siegel Staff Software Developer Symantec Corporation, Language Products Group Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel "When it comes to my health, I think of my body as a temple - or at least a moderately well-managed Presbyterian youth center." - Emo Phillips ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
cc4b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Christopher Brian Cox) (07/27/89)
How about the policy on people who happened to purchase LSC 3.x two days before the 4.0 announcement was made? I personally will not be very happy if Symantec says I have to shell out another $69 for a 48 hour mistake. Chris (Yes Rich, my registration is sent in. I mailed it about 3 hours before I read your post on 4.0)
siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) (07/27/89)
In article <wYncubu00hcq05HGoq@andrew.cmu.edu> cc4b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Christopher Brian Cox) writes: > >How about the policy on people who happened to purchase LSC 3.x two days before the 4.0 announcement was made? If you purchased 3.something less than a week before the announcement, the upgrade price is $10,000,000. :-) If you purchased within some cutoff (a month? I'm not sure), the upgrade is free. R. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rich Siegel Staff Software Developer Symantec Corporation, Language Products Group Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel "When it comes to my health, I think of my body as a temple - or at least a moderately well-managed Presbyterian youth center." - Emo Phillips ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lippin@sizzlean.berkeley.edu (The Apathist) (07/29/89)
Recently MAC.ROMOS@applelink.apple.com (Ian Hendry) wrote: >Does 4.0 do anything about the 32K segment limit? If the smart linker >would not barf on 32K segments before it removed the unused code that >would be cool too. It is really annoying to have to hand cull my general >libraries for just those routines that I am actually using so that I can >fit the libraries in the segments that they would fit into anyway once the >smart linker got at them. The current implementation kind of defeats the >purpose of libraries. I don't think it's the segment size that's a problem here; it's the library implementation. I don't have a need for segments over 32K; but I would like libraries that were. So, let's have multi-segment libraries. I have another problem with libraries, or at least with included projects: it's a pain to make and test changes. It would be much easier if more than one project could be open at once. That, together with using system 7's publish/subscribe mechanism (or something similar) to track updates would make libraries far more useful to me. --Tom Lippincott lippin@math.berkeley.edu "If it was so, then it would be, and if it were so, then it could be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's Logic." --Tweedledee
siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) (07/29/89)
In article <3212@internal.Apple.COM> MAC.ROMOS@applelink.apple.com (Ian Hendry) writes: >Does 4.0 do anything about the 32K segment limit? If the smart linker >would not barf on 32K segments before it removed the unused code that When building non-applications, the smart linker will waive the 32K segment limit until the smartlink is done. --Rich ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rich Siegel Staff Software Developer Symantec Corporation, Language Products Group Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel "When it comes to my health, I think of my body as a temple - or at least a moderately well-managed Presbyterian youth center." - Emo Phillips ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~