Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!burl!codas!killer!richardh From: richardh@killer.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: MSC5.0 benchmarks Message-ID: <2221@killer.UUCP> Date: Wed, 25-Nov-87 20:41:32 EST Article-I.D.: killer.2221 Posted: Wed Nov 25 20:41:32 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 29-Nov-87 03:29:30 EST References: <274@krebs.acc.virginia.edu> <7954@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> <2773@sphinx.uchicago.edu> Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas Lines: 59 Summary: I'll stick with Turbo C also. In article <2773@sphinx.uchicago.edu>, pre1@sphinx.uchicago.edu (Grant Prellwitz) writes: > In article <7954@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: > >In article <274@krebs.acc.virginia.edu> wrp@krebs.acc.virginia.edu (Wm Pearson) writes: > >| So Turbo'C' still has the edge, because of compilation time > >|and cost. I like to distribute source code that other people can read > >|and modify, with Turbo'C' they can compile it for <$70.00. (It also > >|requires a lot less disk space). But MSC > >|does contain a graphics library. Unfortunately the MSC graphics library > >|appears to not support the hercules graphics cards. > > > >QuickC and TurboC have the same list price $99 (at least quoted in the > >ad in front of me). I doubt that the discount prices vary much either. I > >like QuickC because of the debugger and graphics. > >-- > > Well, with Turbo C version 1.5, TC will be getting graphics ability at no > added cost. It will supposedly support CGA, EGA, Hercules, VGA, and ATT 400. > Expected date of release: Mid December. > TC has the advantage of giving you the option of command line or menu driven > in all models (apparently QC only has Medium in menu mode). The debugger is > the only thing TC is lacking that it could really use (they are supposedly > working on one to be included with version 2.0). I went with TC when it first > came out, having had good experiences with TP (and no good experiences with > MicroSoft) and have been pleased. Not having enough $$ to get both and be able > to compare, I'll stick with TC. > Add my vote for Turbo C. It is a very solid, versatile product. I still think it's one of the best values (along with PCED) in MS-DOS software today. And now a word (or two) about Turbo C version 1.5: According to a Borland rep on CIS, Turbo C 1.5 started shipping Monday. The two biggest additions are the graphics library (appears to be very thorough and well done, but I'm not a graphics guru; it has everything I'll need) and the additions/modifications to the standard screen output functions to give them Turbo Pascal-like capabilities (your old friends gotoxy(), wherex(), wherey(), window(), insline(), delline(), clrscr(), clreol(), highvideo(), movetext(), textattr(), etc., etc. are back -- but they did it right - you can ignore them if you wish and you'll never know they are there.) On top of that are such things as stdprn and stdaux are automatically defined, a fast version of grep, and a librarian utility. Other things are the -I and -L options now support a multiple directory format and the linker searches the -L directories for all libraries, including user libraries. Also, all known bugs were fixed. On the downside, the bessel function package is still not part of the standard libraries. In case you are wondering, I was a beta tester for version 1.5. I have never used Quick C, but the restriction to medium model is enough for me to know I'm not interested. And I can't afford MS C 5.0. richard hargrove ...!killer!richardh -------------------