Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!apple!bionet!agate!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!ucsd!sdcsvax!beowulf!holtz
From: holtz@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Fred Holtz)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Microsoft Vs. Borland
Message-ID: <5329@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU>
Date: 28 Sep 88 00:39:43 GMT
References: <876@galaxy>
Sender: nobody@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU
Organization: EE/CS Dept. U.C. San Diego
Lines: 16

In article <876@galaxy> jshah@andromeda (Jigish Shah) writes:
>
>does any one have a preference between MS C5.1 and Turbo C 2.0

It's a pretty sad state of affairs when the first thing that came to mind
upon reading the original subject line was  "great,  another lawsuit..."

As for a preference,  Turbo C is a much better deal,  maybe the primary concern
if you are paying for it personally.  MSC may be a more mature product with
a larger user base,  but that doesn't make up for its cost and MicroSoft's
reputation for poor support.  But what do I know,  I've been using Lattice
C V3.1 for over two years without any upgrades!  But seriously,  if I were
in the market for a new compiler I would go with the Borland product without
hesitation  (I have only looked at MSC 5.0 and TC 1.5,  though...)

Asbestos suit donned and return flamethrower manned!-)