[comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc] Borland C++

hudgens@sun13.SCRI.FSU.EDU (Jim Hudgens) (02/18/91)

  I just got a new letter in the mail announcing "Borland C++", for 
about $149 upgrade.  Anyone tried this package?  Looks pretty good.

JHH






--

Jim Hudgens		Supercomputer Computations Research Institute
hudgens@sun13.scri.fsu.edu

cyang%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Cheng Yang) (02/18/91)

In article <HUDGENS.91Feb17113724@sun13.sun13.SCRI.FSU.EDU> hudgens@sun13.SCRI.FSU.EDU (Jim Hudgens) writes:
>
>  I just got a new letter in the mail announcing "Borland C++", for 
>about $149 upgrade.  Anyone tried this package?  Looks pretty good.
>
>JHH
>

Is it "TURBO C++"?  It is $75.00 in our university bookstore.
"TURBO C++ PROFESSIONAL" (including Turbo Assembler, Turbo Debugger and
Turbo Profile) is $140.00.

I used Turbo C++.  The user interface is nice and I like it very much.

*****************************************************************************
*	Ho capito, signor,si!........                                       *
*                                                                           *
*Cheng Yang				Home Address:                       *
*Department of Computer Science		808 East, 300 South, #3             *
*University of Utah			Salt Lake City, UT 84102            *
*E-Mail Address:cyang@peruvian.utah.edu	Tel: 801-322-1918                   *
*****************************************************************************

dve@mace.cc.purdue.edu (02/18/91)

	There have been some discussion/speculation about the new
	
	Borland C++ and Borland C++ Pro (distinguishing from Turbo C++
	in names) in comp.sys.ms.windows.
		The new C++ packages are supposed to supersede the
	existing C++ and in addition provide Windows 3.0 tools to
	write true windows software, for which purpose the MS Windows SDK
	is NOT needed. It's also speculated that the price will still
	be competitive. So it seems that there's no point buying Turbo C++
	anymore, at least for those who use windows. The software is
	supposed to ship anytime now, such as in a week or so.

bangell%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Bob Angell) (02/18/91)

In article <1991Feb17.115749.18934@hellgate.utah.edu> cyang%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Cheng Yang) writes:
>In article <HUDGENS.91Feb17113724@sun13.sun13.SCRI.FSU.EDU> hudgens@sun13.SCRI.FSU.EDU (Jim Hudgens) writes:
>>
>>  I just got a new letter in the mail announcing "Borland C++", for 
>>about $149 upgrade.  Anyone tried this package?  Looks pretty good.
>>
>>JHH
>>
>
>Is it "TURBO C++"?  It is $75.00 in our university bookstore.
>"TURBO C++ PROFESSIONAL" (including Turbo Assembler, Turbo Debugger and
>Turbo Profile) is $140.00.
>
>I used Turbo C++.  The user interface is nice and I like it very much.

Turbo C++ (which I use and love) is different from Borland C++ made by the
same company!  The latter has included a library or so to include WINDOWS
icon code and other 'stuff' into ones programs.

I think they sell for the same price, but you will have to check at your
local vendor, or phone Borland direct at 800-331-0877.

-Bob-

bangell@peruvian.utah.edu
angellrl@cc.utah.edu
!peruvian.utah.edu!bangell

mikey@shuksan.UUCP (Mike Fields) (02/19/91)

In article <6843@mace.cc.purdue.edu>, dve@mace.cc.purdue.edu writes:
> 
> 	There have been some discussion/speculation about the new
> 	
> 	Borland C++ and Borland C++ Pro (distinguishing from Turbo C++
> 	in names) in comp.sys.ms.windows.
> 		The new C++ packages are supposed to supersede the
> 	existing C++ and in addition provide Windows 3.0 tools to
> 	write true windows software, for which purpose the MS Windows SDK
> 	is NOT needed. It's also speculated that the price will still
> 	be competitive. So it seems that there's no point buying Turbo C++
> 	anymore, at least for those who use windows. The software is
> 	supposed to ship anytime now, such as in a week or so.


I just received the upgrade notice in the mail.  They list the upgrade
price from Turbo C pro or Turbo C++ pro as $99.  My complaint is
that why did I just pay $125 in Sept. to upgrade from 2.0 to `
C++ and now it is the same price to upgrade as if I still just had
my Turbo C 2.0??  I called Borland and was told that if my version
had been purchased in the last 60 days, the upgrade would be free.
I really appreciate paying $125 in Sept, getting the 1.01 upgrade
which fixed the initial release in November 90 and now being told that
I could have saved my $125 by waiting 6 months.  Thanks a lot folks!!



-- 
Mikey (yes "he likes it!")
=======================================================   Mike Fields
==>  uunet!bcstec!shuksan!mikey  (206) 657-6136 [work]    12022 NE 138th Pl.
uw-beaver!ssc-vax!shuksan!mikey  (206) 821-3492 [home]    Kirkland, Wa. 98034

jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) (02/19/91)

mikey@shuksan.UUCP (Mike Fields) writes:

>I just received the upgrade notice in the mail.  They list the upgrade
>price from Turbo C pro or Turbo C++ pro as $99.  My complaint is
>that why did I just pay $125 in Sept. to upgrade from 2.0 to `
>C++ and now it is the same price to upgrade as if I still just had
>my Turbo C 2.0??  I called Borland and was told that if my version
>had been purchased in the last 60 days, the upgrade would be free.
>I really appreciate paying $125 in Sept, getting the 1.01 upgrade
>which fixed the initial release in November 90 and now being told that
>I could have saved my $125 by waiting 6 months.  Thanks a lot folks!!


Worse, last fall, I took advantage of Boreland's offer and "upgraded" from
microsoft c to turbo c++ professional for $149.  Last week I got an upgrade
notice in the mail that I could upgrade my package for a "special" price of
$399!

This combined with the bushel basket full of bugs that are intolerable in
a commercial development environment means that I'm going to have to
write Boreland off as a toy compiler again.  This is the second time
I've allowed Boreland to bite me. Shame on me.  As much as I hate it, I'm 
going to have to upgrade my Microsoft compiler.  Too bad.  Boreland has
forgotten what made them great.  Now that they're playing pricing
games like the competition, they're going to be judged by the same 
criteria.

John

-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC        | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade"  (tm)
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. |  Home of the Nidgets (tm)
Marietta, Ga                  | 
{emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd      |"Politically InCorrect.. And damn proud of it  

larry@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Larry Maturo) (02/19/91)

In article <6843@mace.cc.purdue.edu> dve@mace.cc.purdue.edu writes:

   Path: titan!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!emory!att!news.cs.indiana.edu!news.nd.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!mace.cc.purdue.edu!dve
   From: dve@mace.cc.purdue.edu
   Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
   Date: 17 Feb 91 20:14:04 GMT
   References: <HUDGENS.91Feb17113724@sun13.sun13.SCRI.FSU.EDU> <1991Feb17.115749.18934@hellgate.utah.edu>
   Lines: 12


>       There have been some discussion/speculation about the new

>       Borland C++ and Borland C++ Pro (distinguishing from Turbo C++
>       in names) in comp.sys.ms.windows.
>           The new C++ packages are supposed to supersede the
>       existing C++ and in addition provide Windows 3.0 tools to
>       write true windows software, for which purpose the MS Windows SDK
>       is NOT needed. It's also speculated that the price will still
>       be competitive. So it seems that there's no point buying Turbo C++
>       anymore, at least for those who use windows. The software is
>       supposed to ship anytime now, such as in a week or so.


This is not entirely true.  They still sell Turbo C++ and Turbo C++
Professional for those developers not using Windows because the Borland C++
needs 2 MEGs of memory minimum.  If you don't have that much memory you
still can't write Windows programs.  Borland C++ also needs 15 Megs of
disk space.  This is not as much of a problem as it sounds since Turbo C++
Professional also needed about 15 Megs of disk space.  The difference,
however, is that the Professional part of Turbo C++ was optional and
could save space if you didn't install it.  For Borland C++ there is
no professional version.  The one package has both parts, though not
having received it yet I don't know if you can optionally leave part
of it out. 

As for shipping, I ordered it the first day they would let me (Valentines
Day) and they did not have a ship date set yet.  


+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                                   |                                        |
| Larry Maturo                      | Opinions expressed herein must be      |
| Applied Research Laboratories     | yours, neither I nor my employer have  |
| University of Texas at Austin     | any.                                   |
| P.O. Box 8029                     +----------------------------------------+
| Austin, Texas 78713-8029          |                                        |
|                                   | When you're as great as I am it's hard |
| larry @titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu | to be modest, but I succeed where      |
|                                   | others fail.                           |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------------+

robind@code3.com (Robin Dunn) (02/20/91)

In article <540@shuksan.UUCP> mikey@shuksan.UUCP (Mike Fields) writes:
>
>I just received the upgrade notice in the mail.  They list the upgrade
>price from Turbo C pro or Turbo C++ pro as $99.  My complaint is
>that why did I just pay $125 in Sept. to upgrade from 2.0 to `
>C++ and now it is the same price to upgrade as if I still just had
>my Turbo C 2.0??  I called Borland and was told that if my version
>had been purchased in the last 60 days, the upgrade would be free.
>I really appreciate paying $125 in Sept, getting the 1.01 upgrade
>which fixed the initial release in November 90 and now being told that
>I could have saved my $125 by waiting 6 months.  Thanks a lot folks!!
>

(No flames please, this is just an observation...)

You have had the use of a good C++ compiler for the last six months,
isn't that worth the $125?  If not, then perhaps you shouldn't have
gotten it at all!  Or would you have perferred that Borland not
release anything until they were ready to release this version?  What
about until the next?


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robin P. Dunn                                       ...!uunet!code3!robind
3M Health Information Systems                             robind@code3.com
Code3 Product Development                                   (801) 265-4820

rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) (02/20/91)

In article <540@shuksan.UUCP> mikey@shuksan.UUCP (Mike Fields) writes:
>
>I just received the upgrade notice in the mail.  They list the upgrade
>price from Turbo C pro or Turbo C++ pro as $99.  My complaint is
>that why did I just pay $125 in Sept. to upgrade from 2.0 to `
>C++ and now it is the same price to upgrade as if I still just had
>my Turbo C 2.0??  I called Borland and was told that if my version
>had been purchased in the last 60 days, the upgrade would be free.
>I really appreciate paying $125 in Sept, getting the 1.01 upgrade
>which fixed the initial release in November 90 and now being told that
>I could have saved my $125 by waiting 6 months.  Thanks a lot folks!!
>

For the use of the improved version and manuals for those six months.  If you
didn't need the extra power of Turbo C++, then you have indeed been ripped.
For me, it was well worth the $100 upgrade, and this Windows version is so
much more powerful that I think they are being very reasonable, especially
since the Whitewater Toolkit, which normally costs $160 by itself, is
included.

torre@msa3b.UUCP (Patrick Torre) (02/20/91)

mikey@shuksan.UUCP (Mike Fields) writes:

>I just received the upgrade notice in the mail.  They list the upgrade
>price from Turbo C pro or Turbo C++ pro as $99.  My complaint is
>that why did I just pay $125 in Sept. to upgrade from 2.0 to `
>C++ and now it is the same price to upgrade as if I still just had
>my Turbo C 2.0??  I called Borland and was told that if my version
>had been purchased in the last 60 days, the upgrade would be free.
>I really appreciate paying $125 in Sept, getting the 1.01 upgrade
>which fixed the initial release in November 90 and now being told that
>I could have saved my $125 by waiting 6 months.  Thanks a lot folks!!

How many other people feel "screwed",
I have not yet had the chance to use TC++, 
had to beg for the 1.01 upgrade (they wanted more money!)
It is installed but no time to use it yet,
and now there is something new, and cheaper than what I
paid for the first upgrade!!

Borland could make good money on the quality of their products
but instead they milk their "loyal" customers.       

Lets let them know how we feel!

Kahn has written us enough letters, lets write him some!

we are the customers , we pay their bills.

--------------------------

dont let the sig fool you, I payed for TC++ with my 
own cash.


-- 
Patrick Torre @ Dun and Bradstreet Software, Inc (404) 239-2061
{emory,gatech}!nanovx!msa3b!torre 

kessler@hacketorium.Eng.Sun.COM (Tom Kessler) (02/20/91)

I purchased a copy at Fry's electronics in Sunnyvale for $329.  So far it
looks pretty good.  I even managed to get a window up without paying
big $$$'s to microsoft!

hp0p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Hokkun Pang) (02/20/91)

I just received mmy certificate today, but i notice that there're two upgrade
options:  $99 for upgrade from C++ Pro.
          $149 for upgrade from C++

my question is, how do they know which version i have? it doesn't say i need
to send in any proof of ownership, etc. just wondering if i could pay $99. :-)

hart@blackjack.dt.navy.mil (Michael Hart) (02/20/91)

Hi, I just came in on the end of this thread about upgrading and 
what not.

My $.02:
	At Egghead, Babbages, etc, the full TurboC++ Professional 
package is being offered for $144.

If you do not have the Pro version, and need the extra tools,
it may be worthwhile to buy a whole new package.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael G. Hart   hart@blackjack.dt.navy.mil /  mhart@oasys.dt.navy.mil
                In Support of the Men and Women of Desert Storm 
-------------------------------------(=o=)------------------------------------

jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Steven R. Jacobs) (02/21/91)

In article <1536@msa3b.UUCP> torre@msa3b.UUCP (Patrick Torre) writes:
> mikey@shuksan.UUCP (Mike Fields) writes:
>>I really appreciate paying $125 in Sept, getting the 1.01 upgrade
>>which fixed the initial release in November 90 and now being told that
>>I could have saved my $125 by waiting 6 months.  Thanks a lot folks!!
>
> How many other people feel "screwed",
> I have not yet had the chance to use TC++, 
> had to beg for the 1.01 upgrade (they wanted more money!)
> It is installed but no time to use it yet,
> and now there is something new, and cheaper than what I
> paid for the first upgrade!!

Yeah, I really hate how Borland has something better for less money.
Gosh, I wish they would charge us all full price and not let us get
sucked in by upgrades.  I also wish they wouldn't improve their
products so quickly.  What can they be thinking?
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

What a bunch of whining weenies!  I've bought every single upgrade since
Turbo C 1.0 came out, and the total cost has still been less than the
list price for the new Borland C++.

It is really quite simple, folks.  If you don't need the improved
functionality of the upgrade, then don't buy it!  Wait for the _next_
upgrade, and re-evaluate your position.  Borland will probably have yet
another upgrade in 6 to 9 months, so if this one isn't worth buying
then don't buy it.  This is called a free market.  Awesome concept.

> Borland could make good money on the quality of their products
> but instead they milk their "loyal" customers.       

Do you expect them to supply free upgrades for life?
Like Microsoft does? :-)

> Lets let them know how we feel!
> Kahn has written us enough letters, lets write him some!
> we are the customers , we pay their bills.

Go for it.  12 months from now, when you hear rumors that Borland
has a new version of the compiler ready but won't release it for
fear of customer backlash, you'll have something worse to bitch
about.

> dont let the sig fool you, I payed for TC++ with my 
> own cash.

So did I.  Versions 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, TC++, and now Borland C++.
They were all worth it.
--
Steve Jacobs  ({bellcore,hplabs,uunet}!utah-cs!jacobs, jacobs@cs.utah.edu)

jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) (02/21/91)

hp0p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Hokkun Pang) writes:

>I just received mmy certificate today, but i notice that there're two upgrade
>options:  $99 for upgrade from C++ Pro.
>          $149 for upgrade from C++
>my question is, how do they know which version i have? 

I called my upgrade in today.  they ask you for the serial numbers of all
the products in the professional set.  If you got an answer for these
questions, you can probably upgrade.  If not, welllll.... :-)

John

-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC        | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade"  (tm)
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. |  Home of the Nidgets (tm)
Marietta, Ga                  | 
{emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd      |"Politically InCorrect.. And damn proud of it  

rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) (02/21/91)

In article <1536@msa3b.UUCP> torre@msa3b.UUCP (Patrick Torre) writes:
>
>How many other people feel "screwed",
>I have not yet had the chance to use TC++, 
>had to beg for the 1.01 upgrade (they wanted more money!)
>It is installed but no time to use it yet,
>and now there is something new, and cheaper than what I
>paid for the first upgrade!!
>
>Borland could make good money on the quality of their products
>but instead they milk their "loyal" customers.       
>

Geez, you don't HAVE to buy the upgrade.  I for one am glad that they are
improving their software so fast.  Those who don't need the extra power can
use what they had, and those who need it will be glad that it's available.

This is the same basic dilemma as most hardware companies have.  If they don't
bring out new versions quick, users bitch because they are no longer at the
cutting edge of technology.  If they bring out new versions quick, people bitch
because they feel obsolete.  No matter what they do, people will whine, it's
a no-win situation as far as that goes.

gary@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM (Gary Barrett) (02/21/91)

"Borland could make good money on the quality of their products
but instead they milk their "loyal" customers.

Lets let them know how we feel!

Kahn has written us enough letters, lets write him some!

we are the customers , we pay their bills."

Well, I am one loyal customer who remains loyal and most certainly
does NOT feel screwed.  Each time that Borland provides an update, it
includes such a significant increase in capabilities that I can't wait
to put down the bucks.  

I remember REALLY being screwed by companies with "upgrades" in name
only, ones full of bugs besides.                 

It's a free country.  I can choose NOT to upgrade.  For example, I am
passing on Turbo Pascal 6.0 but WILL get Borland C++.  I am grateful
that Borland offers both alternatives.  
-- 
========================================================================
Gary L. Barrett

My employer may or may not agree with my opinions.
And I may or may not agree with my employer's opinions.
========================================================================

gw1e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Gabriel M. Wachob) (02/21/91)

Ok folks.... There's a TON of Borland pricing numbers flying around for
Borland C++. here's my situation. I bought TC++ Pro less around 60 days
ago. I also bought TC 2.0 6 mos. before that. I am a college student and
VERY poor. I would really like to get Borland C++ as cheap as possible.
What's the bottom line.. What am I gonna pay for it, if I order today
(OK, not today, but sometime in the near future)????????
-gmw

brk102@leah.albany.edu (Brian King) (02/22/91)

>How many other people feel "screwed",

[complaints deleted...]

>Borland could make good money on the quality of their products
>but instead they milk their "loyal" customers.       
>
>Lets let them know how we feel!
>
>Kahn has written us enough letters, lets write him some!
>

Listen, if you do not plan on getting into doing any Window's
programming, then you really have no need to get the upgrade. However,
if you are at ALL familiar with the woes of the Microsoft SDK, and the
quality of the WhiteWater Resource Toolkit (which alone normally costs
about 150) that comes with the new Borland C++, then you don't even
know how good of a deal this really is. There is no need for the SDK
with this package. Look around at some prices of Microsoft C and the
Microsoft SDK, both of which are required to do Windows programming,
and I think you'll understand. We needed something like this, especially those
of us that could not afford the ridiculous prices of Micorsoft C and the SDK.

Also don't forget that you may always return the product within 60
days for a refund if you are not satisfied. :-)


BTW, I am in no way affiliated with Borland, other than just being a VERY
satisfied customer.

-Brian King
 University at Albany
 Internet: brk102@leah.albany.edu
 bitnet: brian@albnyvms.bitnet

jwbirdsa@amc-gw.amc.com (James Birdsall) (02/22/91)

   One question that I have not seen addressed yet is, does Borland C++ add
anything *other* than support for Windows? I have zero need for Windows
support, but other significant enhancements (over TC++ Pro) might be
interesting.

   Also, somebody mentioned that Borland C++ requires 2M of RAM. What
*kind* of RAM, though? Between conventional and EMS, I can produce 2M
easily. Or does it require extended (i.e. a 286 or better)?

-- 
James W. Birdsall   WORK: jwbirdsa@amc.com   {uunet,uw-coco}!amc-gw!jwbirdsa
HOME: {uunet,uw-coco}!amc-gw!picarefy!jwbirdsa OTHER: 71261.1731@compuserve.com
================== Kitten: a small homicidal muffin on legs. ==================
=========== "For it is the doom of men that they forget." -- Merlin ===========

torre@msa3b.UUCP (Patrick Torre) (02/22/91)

robind@code3.com (Robin Dunn) writes:


>(No flames please, this is just an observation...)

>You have had the use of a good C++ compiler for the last six months,
>isn't that worth the $125?  If not, then perhaps you shouldn't have
>gotten it at all!  Or would you have perferred that Borland not
>release anything until they were ready to release this version?  What
>about until the next?


perhaps if they had waited until TC++ was "ready" we would
all be happier.
Turbo C++ is still full of bugs and now there is another version?
,to which we should "upgrade"?
anything to make money....


-- 
Patrick Torre @ Dun and Bradstreet Software, Inc (404) 239-2061
{emory,gatech}!nanovx!msa3b!torre 

jerry@gumby.Altos.COM (Jerry Gardner) (02/23/91)

In article <1536@msa3b.UUCP> torre@msa3b.UUCP (Patrick Torre) writes:

>How many other people feel "screwed",
>I have not yet had the chance to use TC++, 
>had to beg for the 1.01 upgrade (they wanted more money!)
>It is installed but no time to use it yet,
>and now there is something new, and cheaper than what I
>paid for the first upgrade!!

I bought a new 1990 Acura last July.  Gee, now the 1991's are out!!! Maybe
I should write Acura a nasty letter and demand a free upgrade?!?

>Borland could make good money on the quality of their products
>but instead they milk their "loyal" customers.       

I'd rather see five new versions a year than never see an upgrade just because
people like you never get around to using previous versions...


-- 
Jerry Gardner, NJ6A					Altos Computer Systems
UUCP: {sun|pyramid|sco|amdahl|uunet}!altos!jerry	2641 Orchard Parkway
Internet: jerry@altos.com				San Jose, CA  95134
Help stamp out vi in our lifetime.                      (408) 432-6200

ebergman@isis.cs.du.edu (Eric Bergman-Terrell) (02/25/91)

Give me a break!  Do you develop commercial software?  If so, after a 
major upgrade (for example, converting a DOS application to Windows)
do you give the upgraded software away free to your loyal customers?
If so, you have deep pockets.

My policy:  customers shouldn't pay for bug fixes, but they should pay
for enhancements.

Borland did some MAJOR enhancements to add MS Windows support to their
C++ compiler.  It cost them big bucks, hence they expect to make big
bucks selling upgrades.

That's how the industry works.  You always have an option not to upgrade.


Terrell