hpoppe@scdpyr.ucar.edu (Herb Poppe) (06/11/88)
THINK/SYMANTEC has a full page ad in the July '88 MacUser announcing LSC 3.0. Down in the fine print at the bottom of the page are some interesting notes. 1) Program requires 1 megabyte RAM. 2) Debugger requires 2 megabytes and MultiFinder. Herb Poppe NCAR INTERNET: hpoppe@scdpyr.UCAR.EDU (303) 497-1296 P.O. Box 3000 CSNET: hpoppe@ncar.CSNET Boulder, CO 80307 UUCP: hpoppe@scdpyr.UUCP
cnc@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Chris Christensen) (06/12/88)
> 2) Debugger requires 2 megabytes and MultiFinder.
WHAT!?
Is this true?
After all the hype, all the waiting, all the promises, the disappointment
of a $69 upgrade, after all that I won't be able to use it on my Mac Plus
(without buying memory at today's ridiculous prices).
Say it isn't so.
Chris Christensenchuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (06/13/88)
>After all the hype, all the waiting, all the promises, the disappointment >of a $69 upgrade, after all that I won't be able to use it on my Mac Plus >(without buying memory at today's ridiculous prices). Repeat the litany after me: Give it to me now Give it to me free Make sure it runs on my PDP-3! C'mon, folks. You want new toys, you better be willing to meet the publishers at least half way. Programmers aren't cheap (hmm. maybe they are. Maybe that's the problem.. Oh, never mind). Would you people have been any happier with a $25 upgrade to LSC, and the new source level debugger being a separate product? Look at it this way. You're getting a source level debugger for $70. And, coincidentally, all of the OTHER things that are being shoved into LSC 3.0 at the same time. As to the extra memory, well, you have to put functionality someplace, folks. Every time you add features, you need resources to support them. This stuff isn't magic. Gimme a break. Every time a publisher does something reasonable, all the screamers come out because it isn't reasonable enough. You want it free. The publishers want to be able to pay the rent, eat, and have enough money left over to build the next release. And if they don't get it, there is no next release. If you don't like what they're doing with LSC 3.0, don't buy it. That's always your option, you know. Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ Robert A. Heinlein: 1907-1988. He will never truly die as long as we read his words and speak his name. Rest in Peace.
cnc@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Chris Christensen) (06/14/88)
> > Repeat the litany after me: > > Give it to me now > Give it to me free > Make sure it runs on my PDP-3! > Promise it now Deliver it late And to hell with the PDP-8 > > Would you people have been any happier with a $25 upgrade to LSC, and the > new source level debugger being a separate product? > > Look at it this way. You're getting a source level debugger for $70. And, > coincidentally, all of the OTHER things that are being shoved into LSC 3.0 > at the same time. Granted that eventually I would like more memory, but currently few users have 2 Meg. Many would rather not pay the inflated prices to obtain it. The Mac is a great computer that is currently expensive and heading toward overpriced. The upgade will not be $70 to me it will be $470+ with the current memory prices. I was disappointed in $69 dollars for the upgrade, but I was still planning on buying it. Now, I can't. I do not want the upgrade for free. I would like to see Think grow and thrive. They have made a good product and deserve to benifit from it. But think back. For about a year we have heard about this wonderful upgrade, this glorious upgrade, this needed upgrade. One of the reasons I bought LSC at all, was that I heard that they were working on a source code debugger. I fell into the vaporware trap. Now, I know that it may not seem like vaporware to you, but look at it from my point of view. The invitations went out for the party of the year. I planned for it. I bought the required tux. I cancel my other plans only to find out at the last minute that I was not really invited. I could get my self reinvited for another $400 that I do not have to spend. I am not mad. I am not screaming as Chuq suggested. I do feel left out. Chris "all dressed up with no where to go" Christensen
dwb@Apple.COM (David W. Berry) (06/14/88)
In article <327@ncar.ucar.edu> hpoppe@scdpyr.UCAR.EDU (Herb Poppe) writes: >THINK/SYMANTEC has a full page ad in the July '88 MacUser announcing >LSC 3.0. > >Down in the fine print at the bottom of the page are some interesting >notes. > >1) Program requires 1 megabyte RAM. > >2) Debugger requires 2 megabytes and MultiFinder. This news just in from Symantec (came in a letter, supposedly to all registered users) "June 8, 1988 "Dear Registered User, "We've got it! And soon you can have it too! The new THINK's LightspeedC 3.) will be available at the beginning of July. "Highlights of version 3.0 include: " - all new source level debugger for incredibly fast developement " - precompiled headers for ultimate compliation speed " - support for Inside Macintosh I-V " - inline 68881 math co-processor and 68020 support " - new documentation" It goes on to verify the 1 and 2 megabyte restrictions. Directly reads 2.01 and later projects. An upgrade form is included "to get your copy of ThINK's LightspeedC 3.0 as soon as it ships." $69 to all registered users (plus the inevitable shipping and handling) Check or money order ONLY **NO CREDIT CARD OR PURCHASE ORDERS** (Sigh, if you work for a bureaucracy, good luck) If you purchased THINK's LightspeedC after February 1, 1988, your upgrade is free. Send upgrade orders to: Symantec Corp. Customer Service Dept. THINK's LightspeedC 3.0 Upgrade 10201 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 For further questions call (408)446-9994 "P.S. If you have friends who forgot to send us their regiristration card, tell them to send us their original registration card or original THINK's LightspeedC System disk, along with their name, address, phone number, and check or money order to the address listed above." So that's why I posted :-) >Herb Poppe NCAR INTERNET: hpoppe@scdpyr.UCAR.EDU >(303) 497-1296 P.O. Box 3000 CSNET: hpoppe@ncar.CSNET > Boulder, CO 80307 UUCP: hpoppe@scdpyr.UUCP
gillies@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu (06/14/88)
I enjoy LSC 2.15 development on a 1Mb Mac II with multifinder. I use
"Build" to prepare an application for execution. For word processing
1Mb is fine for Word 3.01 + MacDraw both loaded at once. Thus there
is no pressing need to upgrade to 2 megabytes.
It's too bad the source level debugger requires 2Mb and Multifinder.
I guess THINK just lost a customer for version 3.0. I see no other
truly significant feature in version 3.0 (precompiled "include" files
are a frill). It's a pity THINK didn't seize the opportunity to
DIFFERENTIATE themselves from Apple's MPW (Memory Perennially Wasted)
development system (which requires 2Mb).
I wonder if the $69 upgrade policy has anything to do with Symantec's
purchase of THINK technologies. After all, you ship the money to
California, but the software came from Boston. Maybe the upgrade
policy would have been different had THINK remained an independent
company. $369 is a lot for a source-level debugger ($300 for SIMMs,
$69 for software).
Don Gillies {ihnp4!uiucdcs!gillies} U of Illinois
{gillies@cs.uiuc.edu}singer@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) (06/15/88)
In article <730035@hpcilzb.HP.COM> cnc@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Chris Christensen) writes: >Granted that eventually I would like more memory, but currently few users >have 2 Meg. Many would rather not pay the inflated prices to obtain it. >The Mac is a great computer that is currently expensive and heading toward >overpriced. The upgade will not be $70 to me it will be $470+ with the >current memory prices. I was disappointed in $69 dollars for the upgrade, >but I was still planning on buying it. Now, I can't. The way you're talking, you're making it sound as if LightspeedC 3.0 is utterly useless if you do not have two megabytes of memory. I hate to disappoint you, but this is not the case. There are two ways to go with LightspeedC 3.0: 1) Don't use the debugger, and save your pennies to buy a Dove MacSnap upgrade, or some other inexpensive upgrade. 2) Use a Finder replacement under MultiFinder (I've written one that literally doesn't use any memory - it goes away when you launch a program) and reduce the partition sizes for LightspeedC and for the debugger. In a pinch, you can proceed as in (1) and then set up the debugger when you're really stuck. This is what I did until very recently, when I was doing the LighspeedC libraries on a 1 megabyte Mac Plus. >I do not want the upgrade for free. I would like to see Think grow and >thrive. They have made a good product and deserve to benifit from it. If you don't want the upgrade for free, then why are you bitching about the cost? If I had a nickel for every time someone flamed about some aspect of THINK Technologies or its products, and then says "but I just want it to be the best!" I'd be rich. >But think back. For about a year we have heard about this wonderful >upgrade, this glorious upgrade, this needed upgrade. One of the reasons I >bought LSC at all, was that I heard that they were working on a source code >debugger. I fell into the vaporware trap. Now, I know that it may not seem >like vaporware to you, but look at it from my point of view. You heard we were working on a sounce-level debugger, but until very recently, the AVAILABILITY of said debugger had not been announced. (Granted, ads were placed, but as has been already been said, that was the fault of our ex- ad agency., and we publicly set things straight. If you're in a "trap", it's because you stuck your foot in it, not because you were mis-led into believing that there really was a debugger. Honestly, if you are this upset at having to pay for the upgrade, go buy MPW C. or Aztec C. No one's stopping you. But neither one has source-level debugger, and I can guarantee you that when they do, they'll require 2.5 MB (in the case of MPW) to even *begin* using the debugging facilities. And you'll find that either one costs around $400. --Rich Rich Siegel Quality Assurance Technician THINK Technologies Division, Symantec Corp. Internet: singer@endor.harvard.edu UUCP: ..harvard!endor!singer Phone: (617) 275-4800 x305
olson@endor.harvard.edu (Eric K. Olson) (06/15/88)
>In article <730035@hpcilzb.HP.COM> cnc@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Chris Christensen) writes: >>I was disappointed in $69 dollars for the upgrade, >>but I was still planning on buying it. Now, I can't. I'm more than happy to pay $69 for LSC 3.0. I mean, I bought LSC perhaps 18 months ago and found it to be the most _fun_ environment I've ever programmed in. I like the cleanliness of the implementation (MPW C made me want to puke with its automatic string conversion [In all fairness, version 3 of MPW C will make this optional]). I got 3 or 4 completely free upgrades, and I didn't even have to pay for a postage stamp! Its really hip! LSC + Multifinder + lots of memory is a real programming high. [If you can't afford the memory, don't expect to get so high :-) ] In a recent article Rich Siegel writes: > If I had a nickel for every time someone flamed about some aspect >of THINK Technologies or its products, and then says "but I just want >it to be the best!" I'd be rich. But, you _are_ Rich! > --Rich > >Rich Siegel >Quality Assurance Technician >THINK Technologies Division, Symantec Corp. >Internet: singer@endor.harvard.edu >UUCP: ..harvard!endor!singer >Phone: (617) 275-4800 x305 -Eric P.S. Please respond by yelling. I can't read. Lexington Software Design: Tomorrow's Software Yesterday Eric K. Olson olson@endor.harvard.edu harvard!endor!olson D0760 (Name) (ArpaNet) (UseNet) (AppleLink)
jwhitnell@cup.portal.com (06/16/88)
Chris "all dressed up with no where to go" Christensen writes... |I was disappointed in $69 dollars for the upgrade, |but I was still planning on buying it. Now, I can't. LightspeedC 3.0 will run in 1 megabyte, but without the source level debugger. It may still be worth getting for the new documentation and precompiled header support. And you'll be all ready when memory prices drop again (which they will, this is not the first chip crisis that's happened). -- Jerry Whitnell jwhitnell@cup.portal.com ..!sun!cup.portal.com!jwhitnell
cnc@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Chris Christensen) (06/16/88)
> The way you're talking, you're making it sound as if LightspeedC 3.0 > is utterly useless if you do not have two megabytes of memory. I hate to > disappoint you, but this is not the case. There are two ways to go with > LightspeedC 3.0: > > 1) Don't use the debugger, and save your pennies to buy a Dove > MacSnap upgrade, or some other inexpensive upgrade. > > 2) Use a Finder replacement under MultiFinder (I've written one > that literally doesn't use any memory - it goes away > when you launch a program) and reduce the partition > sizes for LightspeedC and for the debugger. In a pinch, > you can proceed as in (1) and then set up the debugger > when you're really stuck. This is what I did until > very recently, when I was doing the LighspeedC libraries > on a 1 megabyte Mac Plus. > Rich, I did not mean to say that LSC is useless without the 2Meg. I use it now and love it. I meant that I do not plan to buy the upgrade unless I could use the symbolic debugger on my Mac (currently a Mac+ with 1 Meg). Informing me that there is hope will certainly not disappoint me. It sounds like you are saying that the 2Meg limit is not hard and fast. Can you give any more details? > If you don't want the upgrade for free... I would like it for free. I would take it for cheap. I will buy it if it seems to be worth the money to me. Chris
blknowle@uokmax.UUCP (Bradford L Knowles) (06/16/88)
In article <4771@husc6.harvard.edu> singer@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel) writes: > 2) Use a Finder replacement under MultiFinder (I've written one > that literally doesn't use any memory - it goes away > when you launch a program) ... > [stuff deleted...] > --Rich > >Rich Siegel >Quality Assurance Technician >THINK Technologies Division, Symantec Corp. >Internet: singer@endor.harvard.edu >UUCP: ..harvard!endor!singer >Phone: (617) 275-4800 x305 Rich, would you be willing to post your Finder replacement? It sounds like the PERFECT thing for some people who want, or need, to use MutliFinder with LSC 3.0 (and other things, of course). More goodies from the magicians at THINK! -Brad Knowles UUCP: ...!ihnp4!occrsh!uokmax!blknowle ARPA: blknowle@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu SNAIL: 1013 Mobile Circle Norman, OK 73071-2522 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Philosophy of Boris Yeltsin: "If one wants to be unemployed, one will criticize ones' boss. If one wants to be sent to Siberia, one will criticize the wife of ones' boss." -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Disclaimer: (The above opinions are my own. They have nothing to do with the Univeristy of Oklahoma nor intelligance of any sort. :-)
kiyun@mirror.TMC.COM (KiYun Roe) (06/16/88)
In article <4771@husc6.harvard.edu> singer@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel) writes: > > 2) Use a Finder replacement under MultiFinder (I've written one > that literally doesn't use any memory - it goes away > when you launch a program) and reduce the partition > sizes for LightspeedC and for the debugger. In a pinch, > you can proceed as in (1) and then set up the debugger > when you're really stuck. This is what I did until > very recently, when I was doing the LighspeedC libraries > on a 1 megabyte Mac Plus. This is very interesting. Frankly, if the LSC 3.0 debugger really requires 2 megabytes, then I will probably spring for an upgrade, but with current memory prices, I will do practically anything to avoid this. When I develop code, I generally don't run anything else, so I wouldn't mind using a Finder replacement. So, Rich, I hope you'll elaborate on your statement: (1) Is it really possible to use the debugger in a 1 megabyte machine? (2) What size partitions are you using? (3) Are you really compiling and debugging, or are you editing, compiling, rebooting, changing configuration, _then_ debugging? (4) Do you have TMON installed? (5) Would you mind posting your Finder replacement that "literally doesn't use any memory?" I apologize for the numerous questions, but you appear to have exciting news that can save many, many people lots of money (and make them all happy Think customers!). ---- KiYun Roe kiyun@mirror.TMC.COM {mit-eddie, pyramid, harvard!wjh12, cca, datacube}!mirror!kiyun Mirror Systems 2067 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02140 Telephone: 617-661-0777 Ext. 140
macak@lakesys.UUCP (Jim Macak) (06/18/88)
In article <15199@mirror.TMC.COM> kiyun@prism.TMC.COM (KiYun Roe) writes: >In article <4771@husc6.harvard.edu> singer@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel) writes: >> >> 2) Use a Finder replacement under MultiFinder (I've written one >> that literally doesn't use any memory - it goes away >> when you launch a program) and reduce the partition.... >(5) Would you mind posting your Finder replacement that "literally doesn't use any memory?" (Several lines deleted from the above comments.) I would sure like to see that Finder replacement posted too. If this would be possible, _please_ do so, Rich. There are an awful lot of Mac users out here with 1 meg machines who can't run MultiFinder with any efficiency because of the memory constraints. Such a Finder replacement would be a very handy utility! Jim -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Jim --> macak@lakesys.UUCP (Jim Macak) {Standard disclaimer, nothin' fancy!} >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
atchison@hpindda.HP.COM (Lee Atchison) (06/18/88)
Well, if I understand Rich correctly, then it is POSSIBLE (albeit, probably not incredibly easy) to use LSC 3.0's debugger with 1MByte of memory if you use a Finder replacement (or, more likely, Rich's zero memory Finder replacement). If this is true, can't you just take a copy of LSC and rename it to "Finder" and put it in the System Folder? This sounds like a nifty solution to me. Oh, my. I hope this is true. I'm one of the fortunately few who just bought LSC recently so I get the upgrade for "free" (shipping only). If I can use the debugger on my 1MB Macintosh, I will be SOOOOOOOO happy! -------- As a side note. When I first heard that the symbolic debugger required 2MBytes of memory, I was upset. I bought LSC a couple months ago because I knew there was a debugger coming. Then when I found out I couldn't use it, it bugged me. Then I heard the argument about "more functionality - more memory", and I didn't buy it because LSP has a symbolic debugger and works in 1MByte. I was about to write a response to the net stating my displeasure with the 2MByte news, but then I stopped and thought to myself. LSC is a terrific product. It's the best programming environment I've ever seen on any system anywhere. period. THINK is a great company with a great product and great customer support (that includes, especially, you Rich). If they say the symbolic debugger needs 2MBytes of memory, then I'm willing to bet that it is a barnstormer of a debugger. I'm really looking forward to seeing it, even if I have to upgrade to 2MBytes. Keep up the good work THINK!!!! You still have my support. -lee ---- Lee Atchison Hewlett Packard, Business Networks Division Cupertino, CA 95014 atchison%hpindda@hplabs.hp.com
peter@aucs.UUCP (Peter Steele) (06/20/88)
> |I was disappointed in $69 dollars for the upgrade,
There's been a lot of complaining about the upgrade cost for
LSC 3.0, and I'll admit it's a little high. However, I'd
rather have upgrades than none at all. And look at other
companies: dBase III+ --> dBase IV will cost $269 to upgrade;
Word 3.02 --> Word 4.0 $50.00; SuperPaint 1.1 --> 2.0 $75; and
so on. So, I'd say $69 is about average. I, for one, don't
mind paying it...
--
Peter Steele, Microcomputer Applications Analyst
Acadia University, Wolfville, NS, Canada B0P1X0 (902)542-2201x121
UUCP: {uunet|watmath|utai|garfield}dalcs!aucs!Peter
BITNET: Peter@Acadia Internet: Peter%Acadia.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDUshane@pepe.cc.umich.edu (Shane Looker) (06/21/88)
I talked to Michael Kahl about the 2Meg "problem" at MacHack last week. He thinks (i.e. he hasn't tried it and did not specifically code for it), that it may be possible to remove all inits, sqeeze the System down, and run with minimal partitions and get the debugger running on small(how small?) projects in a 1 Meg machine. It can't hurt to try if you are stuck on a 1 Meg machine. Also Manx does finally have their sdb source debugger. No comment except that I has a strong Unix flavor. (Can you say blech? I thought you could...) LSC 3.0 is to ship the 1st week of next month we were told repeatedly. The manual is at the printers, and the demo we were given of the debugger was great. Shane Looker shane@pepe.cc.umich.edu uunet!umix!pepe.cc.umich.edu!shane Looker@um.cc.umich.edu
Michael_mkahl_Kahl@cup.portal.com (06/27/88)
I have seen several messages on the net deploring that (1) LSC 3.0's debugger requires 2 megabytes, and (2) upgrading to LSC 3.0 will set you back $69 if you bought LSC before 2/1/88. I want to say that I certainly sympathize with those of you who are upset about the debugger's memory requirements. I'm not very happy about it either, given how hard (and expensive) it is to get memory these days. However, I'd like to point out that your investment in memory buys you a *modeless* debugger. While stopped at a breakpoint, you not only have full access to LSC itself, but you can also bring up DA's or run other applications. This important feature, as well as the memory requirement, comes of being MultiFinder-based. I'd also like to point out that when the decision was made to go with this architecture for the debugger, no one had any idea there was going to be a memory shortage! Quite the opposite, in fact. Memory prices were coming down, and there was reason to believe that by now Apple would be shipping machines with 2 meg standard. So no, we're not happy about the 2 meg requirement. It hurts us at least as badly as it hurts you. But the current situation won't last forever, and in the meantime there are other good reasons to upgrade to 3.0. On the other hand, I am surprised that anyone is upset about paying $69 for the upgrade. Do you realize that in a little over two years we have published three major and several minor versions of LSC, and that until now WE HAVE NEVER CHARGED FOR AN UPGRADE! Nonetheless, in this time I have continued to draw a salary. Believe me, we are not out to gouge our customers. We are in business, however. So if you're unhappy about the 2 meg requirement for the debugger, fine. I understand. If you feel the product is not for you, don't buy it. I'll understand. But don't accuse us of overcharging. That's absurd. (If I sound a little annoyed, I guess it's because I am.) -- Michael Kahl, Symantec
sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) (07/02/88)
In article <6894@cup.portal.com> Michael_mkahl_Kahl@cup.portal.com writes: >So if you're unhappy about the 2 meg requirement for the debugger, fine. >I understand. If you feel the product is not for you, don't buy it. I'll >understand. But don't accuse us of overcharging. That's absurd. (If >I sound a little annoyed, I guess it's because I am.) > >-- Michael Kahl, Symantec You're not overcharging, it's just that some of your customers are spoiled. I still remember the v2.01 "Christmas present" a couple of years ago -- NO other software company has ever done anything like that, and I really appreciate all the support and extra help (via the net) since then. $69 for new manuals and a source debugger is eminently reasonable. Hell, I just paid $35 for Suitcase which (although it is certainly a fine product), only allows me to avoid rebooting and using the dreaded Font/DA Mover every now and then. My check is in the mail, and thanks again Michael for the best C development environment I've ever used. - Steve -- Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart, Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you." {uunet,cmcl2}!esquire!sbb | - David Letterman
awd@dbase.UUCP (Alastair Dallas) (07/06/88)
In article <451@esquire.UUCP>, sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) writes: > In article <6894@cup.portal.com> Michael_mkahl_Kahl@cup.portal.com writes: > >If you feel the product is not for you, don't buy it. I'll > >understand. But don't accuse us of overcharging. That's absurd. > > > >-- Michael Kahl, Symantec > > You're not overcharging, it's just that some of your customers are > spoiled. I still remember the v2.01 "Christmas present" a couple of > years ago -- NO other software company has ever done anything like that... > > My check is in the mail, and thanks again Michael for the best C > development environment I've ever used. > I had to check the signature to make sure I didn't write this myself and then forgot it--I agree 100%, and what's weird is that I probably would have phrased it *exactly* the same way. Now that Think has run every other Mac C compiler company out of business, they could charge $495 and get away with it. Then, of course, a low-end niche would open up. So, the only niche available for competitors is big, slow, unfriendly batch mode compilers at a $695 price point. I'm surprised we haven't seen such a product. LightspeedC is the best, Michael. It gets my vote for best software product ever. /alastair/
Thomas_E_Zerucha@cup.portal.com (07/30/88)
Wouldn't it have been better to have a two level upgrade, say $30 for the LSC 3.0 upgrade and $40 for the debugger? It seems that very few users have (or will have until the chip prices drop) 2 Meg, that to charge $70 for an upgrade, half of which is useless to the majority of people is what is being complained about. If you had split it, then you could pay a little now for what you could use, and the rest later when you have upgraded your computer to be able to use it.
jmunkki@santra.HUT.FI (Juri Munkki) (08/02/88)
In article <7763@cup.portal.com> Thomas_E_Zerucha@cup.portal.com writes: >Wouldn't it have been better to have a two level upgrade, say $30 for the >LSC 3.0 upgrade and $40 for the debugger? It seems that very few users >have (or will have until the chip prices drop) 2 Meg, that to charge $70 >for an upgrade, half of which is useless to the majority of people is what >is being complained about. If you had split it, then you could pay a little >now for what you could use, and the rest later when you have upgraded your >computer to be able to use it. YOU CAN USE THE DEBUGGER IN 1M! You will want to use it even if you have only 1M. AND Yes, it is as good as they say it is... I have a Mac 2 with 2MB and until yesterday I had never considered using MultiFinder while developing. The ComputerWare shipment that arrived yesterday contained LSC3.0 and the debugger made me change my mind. It is wonderful. I still want to have 020 and 881 opcodes for the assembler and I'd like to be able to type register names into a data window. You can't currently see the contents of D0 or A0, unless you drop into TMON. In addition to being a good C source code debugger, the debugger is a superb assembly debugger (symbolic beyond your wildest dreams). I also wish a future version will not use subroutine calls for the C math calls. It shouldn't be hard to extend the compiler so that all common calls generate FPU code. Juri Munkki jmunkki@santra.hut.fi jmunkki@fingate.bitnet
kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (Stephen Kurtzman) (08/04/88)
In article <15051@santra.UUCP> jmunkki@santra.UUCP (Juri Munkki) writes: > YOU CAN USE THE DEBUGGER IN 1M! > You will want to use it even if you have only 1M. > AND > Yes, it is as good as they say it is... This is all well and good. I remember seeing a posting from someone else (from THINK, I think) saying the same. The catch was that you had to use a Finder replacement. Was this replacement ever posted to the net? I'm sure I'm not the only person out here who would be interested.
brad@cayman.COM (Brad Parker) (08/04/88)
From article <15051@santra.UUCP>, by jmunkki@santra.HUT.FI (Juri Munkki): > YOU CAN USE THE DEBUGGER IN 1M! > You will want to use it even if you have only 1M. Wow... 1. The debugger is worth > $250. Trust me. $70 is a small price to pay for this *very* usefull tool. I remember when Sumaccs was the only C compiler for the mac and MacDB was the rage. We've come a long way with LSC 3.0 and TMON. $70 seems a reasonable price. We regularly use projects which are over 600K in size. LSC is suprising bug free. It should cost a lot more. 2. 2Mb is not enough to run the debugger for applications which end up being 100-200K. I am forced (well, maybe not forced) to run with 4Mb and can't imagine it working with only 1mb. (It's a crying shame that the Mac II does not have virtual memory.) Please don't flame back over usenet. send me mail. -brad -- "What will you do when you wake up one morning to find that God's made you blind in a beautiful person's world and all those great recepies have let you down, and you're twenty and a half and you're not getting age where you go look for the boys 'says I love you lets get married and have kids." -Billy Bragg.
palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu (David Palmer) (08/05/88)
In article <11318@oberon.USC.EDU> kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (Stephen Kurtzman) writes: >In article <15051@santra.UUCP> jmunkki@santra.UUCP (Juri Munkki) writes: >> YOU CAN USE THE DEBUGGER IN 1M! >> You will want to use it even if you have only 1M. >> AND >> Yes, it is as good as they say it is... > >This is all well and good. I remember seeing a posting from someone >else (from THINK, I think) saying the same. The catch was that you had >to use a Finder replacement. Was this replacement ever posted to the net? >I'm sure I'm not the only person out here who would be interested. You don't need a finder replacement, all you have to do is 1) Shrink the partitions for LSC, the debugger and your program 2) Install an FKEY with ID = 5 and contents = A9F4 in Finder, using ResEdit 3) Run LSC from Multifinder, go back to the finder, and hit clover-shift 5 This will quit Finder and leave you with only LSC running. When you quit LSC, Finder will come back. David Palmer palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu ...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer "Flowers -- Just say NO!!" - Mighty Mouse
erik_selberg@pedro.UUCP (Erik Selberg) (08/06/88)
In article <7763@cup.portal.com>, Thomas_E_Zerucha@cup.portal.com writes: > Wouldn't it have been better to have a two level upgrade, say $30 for the > LSC 3.0 upgrade and $40 for the debugger? It seems that very few users > have (or will have until the chip prices drop) 2 Meg, that to charge $70 > for an upgrade, half of which is useless to the majority of people is what > is being complained about. If you had split it, then you could pay a little > now for what you could use, and the rest later when you have upgraded your > computer to be able to use it. (this is to that someone who's @ Symantec/THINK) question: why is LSC's debugger a separate patch program requiring MultiFinder et all? It seems that LSC uses an extravagent amount of memory using all the files; yet LSP has been doing that for about 2 years now, and I can (and am) create a 140K application with it (and still debug et al) on a 512E with 1 800K floppy (without a lot of disk swapping, for that matter!). It seems that you guys at Symantec have just decided to make a patch program instead of a working integrated source debugger, ala LSP. The question again" WHY????? Erik
jmunkki@santra.HUT.FI (Juri Munkki) (08/06/88)
In article <11318@oberon.USC.EDU> kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (S. Kurtzman) writes: >This is all well and good. I remember seeing a posting from someone >else (from THINK, I think) saying the same. The catch was that you had >to use a Finder replacement. Was this replacement ever posted to the net? >I'm sure I'm not the only person out here who would be interested. I think you can manage by using the ExitToShell FKEY. First set the Finder partition to a size that the debugger can use. I think someone said that 160K is ok. Then run Lightspeed C and switch to Finder. Run the FKEY to remove the Finder. This leaves a 160K hole. If you set the debugger to 160K or less, launching your application should put the debugger in the partition you previously used for the Finder. If you use a 500K LSC partition, this leaves 1024-500-160=364K for the system and your program. I think you can run a 200K program with this setup... Please note that I haven't tried this so if someone finds that I'm wrong, please tell it to others before they all try it. Juri Munkki jmunkki@santra.hut.fi jmunkki@fingate.bitnet
schoaff@marduk.cs.cornell.edu (Peter Schoaff) (08/08/88)
Can anyone suggest some partition sizes that work for them when running LSC w/debugger with 1Meg? -chris | P. Chris Schoaff | We are the coffee generation, we can't afford cocaine | | | We need a healthy dose to make it through the day | | schoaff@ | Don't Care about nuclear war or poverty or pain | | cs.cornell.edu | We are the coffee generation and life is just a game. |
alan@metasoft.UUCP (Alan Epstein) (08/16/88)
there are some hidden menus in THINK C pertaining to Multifinder awareness. they don't seem to be activate-able in any way i can figure out. what i'd really like to know is whether compilations can occur in the BACKGROUND. anyone know? PLEASE SEND REPLIES VIA E-MAIL. i'll post a summary if i get interesting responses. thanks. ----------------------------- Alan Epstein Meta Software Corp UUCP: ...bbn!metasoft!alan 150 Cambridgepark Dr Internet/ARPA: alan%metasoft@bbn.com Cambridge, MA 02140 USA -----------------------------
singer@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) (08/17/88)
In article <418@metasoft.UUCP> alan@metasoft.UUCP (Alan Epstein) writes: >there are some hidden menus in THINK C pertaining to Multifinder >awareness. they don't seem to be activate-able in any way i >can figure out. The only such menu that I know of is the menu for setting the flags in the project's SIZE resource; this menu is accessible from the Project Type dialog. >what i'd really like to know is whether compilations can occur >in the BACKGROUND. anyone know? No, and there's no good reason for them to do so. Backgroun compilation is such a CPU-intensive task that it would slow down all of the foreground tasks, and the foreground tasks will slow down compilation, particularly if they don't give sufficient time via correct use of WaitNextEvent. --Rich Rich Siegel Quality Assurance Technician THINK Technologies Division, Symantec Corp. Internet: singer@endor.harvard.edu UUCP: ..harvard!endor!singer Phone: (617) 275-4800 x305
mls@whutt.UUCP (Michael Siemon) (08/17/88)
In article <5125@husc6.harvard.edu>, singer@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) writes: > No, and there's no good reason for them to do so. Backgroun > compilation is such a CPU-intensive task that it would slow down all of > the foreground tasks, and the foreground tasks will slow down compilation, > particularly if they don't give sufficient time via correct use of > WaitNextEvent. Rich, A thought for you to consider, and carry back to your employers, is that some of us work in a mode where we alternate a "make" and editing -- either of more program work or just the diversion of writing to the net. And in these cases the foreground activity really is a near constant NO-OP rather than any "real" CPU usage. I have been pleased by what I have seen so far of LSC 3.0 (yet another happy customer :-)); I can only hope that it will continue as a product the MAC community can be proud of. -- Michael L. Siemon contracted to AT&T Bell Laboratories att!mhuxu!mls standard disclaimer
korn@eris.berkeley.edu (Peter "Arrgh" Korn) (08/17/88)
In <5125@husc6.harvard.edu>, singer@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel) said: >In article <418@metasoft.UUCP> alan@metasoft.UUCP (Alan Epstein) writes: >>what i'd really like to know is whether compilations can occur >>in the BACKGROUND. anyone know? > > No, and there's no good reason for them to do so. Backgroun >compilation is such a CPU-intensive task that it would slow down all of >the foreground tasks, and the foreground tasks will slow down compilation, >particularly if they don't give sufficient time via correct use of >WaitNextEvent. > > --Rich Rich, I have to take exception to this statement. Much of my time is spent typing. Typing in word-processors; typing in terminal emulators; typing in editors. In all three cases, with typing occuring in MPW, LSC, MS-Word, MS-Works, and uw, there is PLENTY of free cycles for background tasks to do work (if you don't believe me, take a look at one of the 'load monitoring' programs that's come across the net [like my Graphic Load Average program] and see for yourself just how much free time there is at any given moment). There are a number of CPU-intensive tasks that work beautifully in the background under the MacOS multitasking model. fracapp generates fractals quite nicely. MPW 3.0 alpha (I used to contract at Apple) executes shell scripts & does compilations quite well in the background. MPW 3.0 beta will supposedly hit the streets Real Soon Now, and you can verify that yourself. Yes, working in the background will mean that you will go slower. So? It will mean that *I* go faster because I'm not waiting for the compile. Fast as LightSpeedC is, it's not fast enough to complete before I can switch layers to another program and type a few lines. If you are worried about possibly executing slower when Multifinder is not running because you have to call WNE() or EA() more often, you can easily special case those situations either with a check box "run in the background", or simply check for "suspend events" and then call EA() frequently if you've gotten one. You claim that some foreground tasks will slow compilation (HyperCard is a good example). True. But if *I* decide to let the compilation take longer because I want to pop into Hypercard, then it's a better allocation of *my* time. Fine, let the compile take longer. The informed person can use a load monitoring program to get a feel for how "greedy" apps are in the foreground & background, and make their decisions on how to allocate their time based on that. But it should be the user's decision, not the program's. Peter -- Peter "Arrgh" Korn korn@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU {decvax,hplabs,sdcsvax,ulysses,usenix}!ucbvax!korn
c60a-3ez@e260-3f.berkeley.edu (Cyrus Harmon) (12/06/88)
I seem to remember hearing something a while back about running LSC and the debugger with only one meg. Is there a way to set the application memory sizes so that the debugger can be run in only 1 meg of memory? Thanks, -c60a-3ez@web.berkeley.edu -Cyrus Harmon