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!-)