oneel@heawk1.rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Bruce Oneel ) (02/28/91)
I got my copy last night and here are my first impressions. This is a long note. First, don't laugh, but here is the machine. PS/2 M25, 8mhz 8086, 640k memory, 20 meg 35ms HD. Not a very capable windows machine. Windows runs OK on it. Not fast but tolerable. The package has about the same size/weight factors as TC++ Pro. It comes on 11 disks (720k 3.5"). I ordered it on 2/14 at 12:30 EST and it was shipped from IL on 2/19 via UPS. I started out with 11 meg free and didn't install the assembler (I don't do assembly), the profiler (It doesn't work in windows to the best of my knowledge), and the debugger ( I was worried about the space). I also only installed the small and large models and and the windows support. While install doesn't tell you how much space you've used/have left it does give you an idea how much you need to install each piece. It complained that I might not have enough space to install before it let me start because they recommend about 15 meg free. It took about 1/2 hr. I went around and deleted all of the executables for protected mode, bccx, bcx, etc... When I was done I had 3 meg free for a net use of 8 meg. Since it was getting late and I wanted to try out windows I used their example book to compile whello.cpp. On a quick look this is quite similiar to the code in the slick mag they sent called something like Borland Language Express. It compiled and ran great!!! This is even in real mode, something that the readme warns against. I next tried the dlldemo program and I couldn't get that to work. Immediate big red switch crash. This had to be compiled within the IDE (no make files, just project files, but prj2mak claimed to exist) and it went kind of slowly. The pre-compiled headers seemed to speed things up quite a bit though. Windows.h compiled slowly the first time but from then on was very fast. The system was definitely working the disk quite hard. Within windows the debugger won't run on my system. It claims it's out of memory and I only have the program manager open. The whitewater resource tool kit runs, but it is painfully slow. Overall summary? For $100 it is great. I'm using a very underpowered machine and it is usable. Overall the documentation lacks a coherent feel from the windows point of view though. Most of the intro material is for DOS, when you hit the windows material there is very little hand holding. The readme is quite important. According to borland on CI$ the limitation on real mode windows apps comes from a problem with the linker which was resolved but not QC'd properly before shipment. It works but isn't supported until they QC it enough so that they are happy. It looks a bit rushed in places but this is really a combination of a 1.0 product and a 2.0 product. The windows part is 1.0 and the c++ is 2.0. I'm very pleased. bruce -- | Bruce O'Neel | internet : oneel@heasfs.gsfc.nasa.gov| | Code 664/STX | span : lheavx::oneel | | NASA/GSFC |compuserve: 72737,1315 | | Greenbelt MD 20771 | AT&Tnet : (301)-286-1119 |
resnicks@netcom.COM (Steve Resnick) (03/02/91)
In article <ONEEL.91Feb28101940@heawk1.rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov> oneel@heawk1.rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Bruce Oneel ) writes: >Overall summary? For $100 it is great. I'm using a very underpowered >machine and it is usable. Overall the documentation lacks a coherent >feel from the windows point of view though. Most of the intro >material is for DOS, when you hit the windows material there is very >little hand holding. The readme is quite important. According to >borland on CI$ the limitation on real mode windows apps comes from a >problem with the linker which was resolved but not QC'd properly >before shipment. It works but isn't supported until they QC it enough >so that they are happy. It looks a bit rushed in places but this is >really a combination of a 1.0 product and a 2.0 product. The windows >part is 1.0 and the c++ is 2.0. > Somewhere in the vast documentation, they recommend Charles Petzold's Windows progrmming book. I forget the title. The idea was that there is a *lot* of information needed to know about Windows, and Petzold is one of the experts. (I have his book on OS/2 PM programming and it's excellent!) Cheers! Steve -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- resnicks@netcom.com, apple!camphq!105!steve.resnick, IFNA: 1:143/105.0, USNail: 530 Lawrence Expressway, Suite 374 Sunnyvale, Ca 94086 - In real life: Steve Resnick. Flames, grammar and spelling errors >/dev/null 0x2b |~ 0x2b, THAT is the question. The Asylum OS/2 BBS - (408)263-8017 12/2400,8,1 - Running Maximus CBCS 1.2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) (03/03/91)
From article <26410@netcom.COM>, by resnicks@netcom.COM (Steve Resnick): > In article <ONEEL.91Feb28101940@heawk1.rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov> oneel@heawk1.rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Bruce Oneel ) writes: >>Overall summary? For $100 it is great. I'm using a very underpowered >>machine and it is usable. Overall the documentation lacks a coherent >>feel from the windows point of view though. Most of the intro >>material is for DOS, when you hit the windows material there is very >>little hand holding. The readme is quite important. According to >>borland on CI$ the limitation on real mode windows apps comes from a >>problem with the linker which was resolved but not QC'd properly >>before shipment. It works but isn't supported until they QC it enough >>so that they are happy. It looks a bit rushed in places but this is >>really a combination of a 1.0 product and a 2.0 product. The windows >>part is 1.0 and the c++ is 2.0. >> > > Somewhere in the vast documentation, they recommend Charles Petzold's > Windows progrmming book. I forget the title. The idea was that there is > a *lot* of information needed to know about Windows, and Petzold is > one of the experts. (I have his book on OS/2 PM programming and it's > excellent!) Interesting to me that Borland won't document Windows SDK themselves. Couldn't get passed the Copyrights I guess. I also received my upgrade recently, but I happen to be relatively unimpressed. BorlandC is now slower than it used to be. In addition, I was dumb enough to be sucked in by their "don't use the Arcane SDK" propoganda. Well, I'm still stuck with it!!! Borland came up with nothing better. Not that I expected them too, I just expected to see something else. Remember, these are first impressions. I just don't see a rose in there. Maybe a marigold, but not a rose.
sdawalt@valhalla.wright.edu (Shane Dawalt) (03/04/91)
From article <ONEEL.91Feb28101940@heawk1.rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, by oneel@heawk1.rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Bruce Oneel ): > > The package has about the same size/weight factors as TC++ Pro. It > comes on 11 disks (720k 3.5"). I ordered it on 2/14 at 12:30 EST and > it was shipped from IL on 2/19 via UPS. > (7 [or 8] disks if you get 1.2Meg 5.25" floppies.) It took my package around 2 weeks as I ordered it 2 days after they [Borland] sent the upgrade certificates. [stuff deleted] > > Overall summary? For $100 it is great. I'm using a very underpowered > machine and it is usable. Overall the documentation lacks a coherent > feel from the windows point of view though. Most of the intro > material is for DOS, when you hit the windows material there is very > little hand holding. Borland has stated that they will not provide programming information for Windows. Really, you can't blame them. There are a few books on the market now which will "hold your hand" for programming under Windows. You might want to crawl on CIS again and ask which book. It seems at one point or another someone asked this question and one particular book was highly praised. I do wish I had written it down. > The readme is quite important. According to > borland on CI$ the limitation on real mode windows apps comes from a > problem with the linker which was resolved but not QC'd properly > before shipment. It works but isn't supported until they QC it enough > so that they are happy. It looks a bit rushed in places but this is > really a combination of a 1.0 product and a 2.0 product. The windows > part is 1.0 and the c++ is 2.0. > > I'm very pleased. <Sigh> I wish I had enough HD space. I need 3 Megs extra for installation, so I haven't been able to play with the tools yet. Now I'm in the market for an extra HD. (I've got an 8 MHz, Z248 w/ 2.56 Megs Extended memory and a 40 Meg HD which is totally full.) Shane(); -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From the keyboard of: email: sdawalt@cs.wright.edu Shane A. Dawalt --------------------------------------------------------------------------
tlglenn@cs.arizona.edu (Ted L. Glenn) (03/04/91)
Just wondering, what's the difference between Turbo C++ and Borland C++?
--
-Ted L. Glenn "Don't worry, be happy!" <--Ack! Pffffhhht!
tlglenn@cs.arizona.edu
G19382105@ccit.arizona.edu G19382105@ARIZRVAX.BITNET