Borland Power Pack (DOS Extender for BC++ 4.0)
Bill Kirby
Borland C++ 4.0 that includes the following:
- royalty free DOS extender (16 and 32 bit)
- Turbo Vision 2.0
- updated BGI (with SVGA support)
The complete announcement is very long, and I didn't think it would
be appropriate to post the entire thing here. It can be downloaded
from ftp.borland.com in /pub/libs/c/bi/gen/pwrpak.zip
--
Bill Kirby
bki...@netcom.com
Ivan Pulleyn
>Today Borland announced the Power Pack for DOS, an add-on to
>Borland C++ 4.0 that includes the following:
>
> - royalty free DOS extender (16 and 32 bit)
> - Turbo Vision 2.0
> - updated BGI (with SVGA support)
>
Funny that the update came out after someone on the net came up with his own
dos extender patch :)
Anyhow, can anyone tell me what this Borland supplied extender is like, and
specifically how much it adds to the executable in size?
Ivan...
--
for pgp public key: finger ip0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
ivan pulleyn 268 susquehanna rd. rochester, ny 14618 (716) 442-3735
hypereal group po box 18572 rochester, ny 14618 (716) 442-6231
Bruce Korb
So, what is/are the IP addresses for 'ftp.borland.com' and/or 'borland.com'?
My name servers can't call up either one.
--
Bruce Korb (bk...@sj.unisys.com) (408) 456-5507
Bill Kirby
Mark S. Wyman
>--
>Bill Kirby
>bki...@netcom.com
Nice to see that Borland ONLY wants an additional $100.00 for the
package. So, you have to buy Borland C++ 4.0 then the Power
Pack. :(
Nice bit of PR in there too saying that if you want the same features
in a competitors compiler you would have to pay over $1000. Yea
right....
Seems to me Borland got alot of hate mail (or slumped sales) about
the lack of a DOS Extender in 4.0. That or they noticed that all
the new games coming out are using Watcoms and the Rational Systems
extender.
Mark
c...@dstos3.dsto.gov.au
>>Borland C++ 4.0 that includes the following:
>
>> - royalty free DOS extender (16 and 32 bit)
>> - Turbo Vision 2.0
>> - updated BGI (with SVGA support)
>
Still worth a look at, though. I hope 3rd party software library suppliers
support the extender quickly.
For Australian users, Borland in Sydney says that it probably won't be out
until late June or early July. Prices are not available at this time, but
you can assume the usual x2 factor on the USA price (so therefore, 200AUD).
This cost is disappointing, but not really suprising.
> Seems to me Borland got alot of hate mail (or slumped sales) about
> the lack of a DOS Extender in 4.0. That or they noticed that all
> the new games coming out are using Watcoms and the Rational Systems
> extender.
>
The sad thing for Borland is that many people must have "left the fold". We
have been considering our options, and only haven't switched by now because
of funding reasons.
--
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are purely personal and do NOT represent
the official view of the organization.
Weather today: Fine, Mild-warm, 21C
David Ray
: For Australian users, Borland in Sydney says that it probably won't be out
: until late June or early July. Prices are not available at this time, but
I called Borland in the US on Friday, they said it wouldn't ship for somewhere
between 30 and 90 days. And they were curious how I heard about it, the guy
I talked to said the press release hadn't been released yet.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember, madness takes it's toll. Please have exact change!
Replys to: dav...@netcom.com
JHD 'Bonzo' Keukelaar
What do you guys think? Which chance is bigger: A dos extender for 3.1,
_or_ a dos IDE for 4.0? I want both the IDE and the extender. :(
--
DOOM: "Never knew hell was this much fun. Can't wait for the real thing"
"Woof, bloody woof!", Gaspode, the wonder dog, in Pratchett's Moving Pictures.
Brian Hook
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer,rec.games.programmer
Path: usenet.ufl.edu!usenet.fiu.edu!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!pacbell.com!amdahl!amd!amdint.amd.com!angelo!roberts
From: rob...@angelo.amd.com (Dave Roberts)
Sender: use...@amd.com (NetNews Admin)
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Santa Clara, CA
References: <bkirbyCp...@netcom.com> <1994May23...@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> <davidrCq...@netcom.com> <2rv8nm$9...@liberator.et.tudelft.nl>
Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 20:16:34 GMT
Lines: 23
Xref: usenet.ufl.edu comp.os.msdos.programmer:38789 rec.games.programmer:25964
> It's just a part of Chicago, so why not make use of Windows as
> the IDE GUI?
Because some of us hate the idea of using Windows simply to write code.
Some of use prefer using a text mode editor because it's easier on the
eyes.
> Maybe I'm dense, but what exactly is it about the DOS IDE that
> everybody loves so much? I've got BC++ 3.1 and I can't really say
> that I love the DOS IDE. I can't say that I like the Windows IDE very
> much either, but what is it about the DOS one?
The DOS IDE was pleasant to use, didn't require that we install 11+MB of
Windows to run, was easy on the eyes, was MEANT for DOS programming (i.e.
Alt-F5 swapped to a full screen DOS screen so you could see your output),
etc. etc.
Brian
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Brian Hook | Specializing in real-time 3D graphics |
| Box 90315 |-----------------------------------------|
| Gainesville, FL 32607 | Internet: b...@cis.ufl.edu | Free Tibet! |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
Digital Knight
> In article <2rv8nm$9...@liberator.et.tudelft.nl>,
> JHD 'Bonzo' Keukelaar <bo...@warns.et.tudelft.nl> wrote:
> >Hmm, I guess there's no chance there will be a dos extender for BC++3.1?
> >What do you guys think? Which chance is bigger: A dos extender for 3.1,
> >_or_ a dos IDE for 4.0? I want both the IDE and the extender. :(
>
> past. They should have been done before, but weren't and the market
> has moved past them. The reality is, with Chicago, there is no real
> DOS. It's just a part of Chicago, so why not make use of Windows as
> the IDE GUI?
>
> everybody loves so much? I've got BC++ 3.1 and I can't really say
> that I love the DOS IDE. I can't say that I like the Windows IDE very
> much either, but what is it about the DOS one?
>
> Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
> I/O and Network Products Division
> david....@amd.com
>
>
... cause when a pointer go into no mans land, it takes lots less time to reboot
and get back into the DOS IDE than to get back to the same spot in the Windows
IDE ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Kerry Mason aka Digital Knight |"Well your're DEAD now, so SHUT UP!"|
| mas...@bnr.ca | Monty Python 'The Meaning of Life' |
| my opinion != BNRs opinion | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabian Gonzalez
Fabian Gonzalez
Zax - Avalanche
--
*** e-mail : fab...@alkymi.unit.no ***
---------------------------------------------------------
If your feet are smelling and your nose is running,
check to see whether you are upside down
---------------------------------------------------------
David Ray
: Maybe I'm dense, but what exactly is it about the DOS IDE that
: everybody loves so much?
Built in debugger is my first comment. Also, I liked the evaluate function,
and the ability to have a DOS "Window" while debugging. It's true that the
built in debugger wasn't as powerful as the stand alone debugger, but it
was a lot more convenient. It was also a nice editor that didn't care about
file size, and it was word star compatible. These things may not be
important to anyone else, but I for one think they are. If I was going
for convenience I probably would have switched to something more efficient
years ago.
Saul Cozens
[stuff deleted]
|>
|> Maybe I'm dense, but what exactly is it about the DOS IDE that
|> everybody loves so much? I've got BC++ 3.1 and I can't really say
|> that I love the DOS IDE. I can't say that I like the Windows IDE very
|> much either, but what is it about the DOS one?
|>
|> Dave Roberts
|> Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
|> I/O and Network Products Division
|> david....@amd.com
|>
|>
What I like about it is
1. The colouriser - makes it easier to spot those annoying typos before
compilation.
2. The online language help. I can find out the prototype of a C function
and its necessary include simply by pressing a mouse key.
These things come in handy when you're as stupid a sme :)
Saul.
Kendall Beaman
:
The thing is. Many people, myself included, grew up on UNIX so colorful
screen editors aren't a must. Even though I now program on DOS I use a
vi clone along with Borland and just use the command line compiler. For
me it's faster. If I want to use Borland's Online help I just load thelp.
All I have to do is be on the C function and hit the hotkey. :) Although
the IDE is nice looking, for me it's slower development. Mouse and
Menu are fine but give me my functionality at a key press.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't mind what Congress does, as long as they don't do it in the
streets and frighten the horses. -- Victor Hugo
bea...@andrews.edu
Robert Schmidt
|> Hmm, I guess there's no chance there will be a dos extender for BC++3.1?
|> What do you guys think? Which chance is bigger: A dos extender for 3.1,
|> _or_ a dos IDE for 4.0? I want both the IDE and the extender. :(
Phar Lap's 286 Extender is available for BC++ 3.1 - it should be OK, but
of course it doesn't give you 32-bit capability.
Borland's new (?) 386 extender will not work with BC++ 3.1, as you have to
compile programs with the new BCC32.EXE to link it with the 32-bit extender.
BCC.EXE 4.0 can only link to the 16-bit 286 extender(s).
--
Robert Schmidt - rob...@stud.unit.no
Your mama told you that you're not supposed to talk to strangers...
Look in the mirror -- do you think your life's in danger?
-- Ozzy Osbourne "No more tears"
John W. Lemons III
> The thing is. Many people, myself included, grew up on UNIX so colorful
> screen editors aren't a must. Even though I now program on DOS I use a
> vi clone along with Borland and just use the command line compiler. For
> me it's faster. If I want to use Borland's Online help I just load thelp.
> All I have to do is be on the C function and hit the hotkey. :) Although
> the IDE is nice looking, for me it's slower development. Mouse and
> Menu are fine but give me my functionality at a key press.
When I first started using the Borland 3.0 IDE, I used the mouse a lot,
because I didn't know the keys. Then I printed out the key list, and slowly
weened myself. In a few weeks, I wasn't using the mouse at all. Much more
productive. Any way, when I moved up to the 3.1 IDE, I was still able to use
the keyboard instead of the mouse. I only used the 3.1 GUI IDE once, found it
amazingly slow and lacking in features, and moved back to the text IDE. The
editor leaves a little to be desired, but it works for most things. For
those things that it doesn't do well, I have my own favorite editor linked
into it, so I can use it any time as well without leaving th IDE. Over all, I
love the IDE and I'm sorry to see it go. Right now, I'm evaluating Watcom for
both DOS and OS/2 work since Borland is abandoning DOS, and their OS/2 support
is VERY poor.
Cheers,
John
"Can you imagine a more frivolous way to spend billions, hooking up
people's homes so that kids can compete playing Marioworld?"
-- Don Valentine on the "information Superhighway"
Steve Atkins
|>
|> Maybe I'm dense, but what exactly is it about the DOS IDE that
|> everybody loves so much? I've got BC++ 3.1 and I can't really say
|> that I love the DOS IDE. I can't say that I like the Windows IDE very
|> much either, but what is it about the DOS one?
Unless you have quite a good graphics accelerator, speed. The DOS IDE is
*so* much faster than the Windows IDE, with eg a standard Trident SVGA card.
--
Steve Atkins <atk...@inmos.co.uk>
If you love something, set it free.
If it doesn't come back, hunt it down and kill it.
The Searcher
: In article <2rv8nm$9...@liberator.et.tudelft.nl>,: >Hmm, I guess there's no chance there will be a dos extender for BC++3.1?
: >What do you guys think? Which chance is bigger: A dos extender for 3.1,
: >_or_ a dos IDE for 4.0? I want both the IDE and the extender. :(
: I don't think either one is very likely. They're both in Borland's
: past. They should have been done before, but weren't and the market
: has moved past them. The reality is, with Chicago, there is no real
: DOS. It's just a part of Chicago, so why not make use of Windows as
: the IDE GUI?
: Maybe I'm dense, but what exactly is it about the DOS IDE that
: everybody loves so much? I've got BC++ 3.1 and I can't really say
: that I love the DOS IDE. I can't say that I like the Windows IDE very
: much either, but what is it about the DOS one?
: Dave Roberts
: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
: I/O and Network Products Division
: david....@amd.com
The damned thing sucks for writing DOS programs. You can edit and compile to
an .OBJ file, but that's the farthest. To fully compile it, you have to exit
to DOS (8 MB RAM doesn't give enough free in a Windows DOS prompt) and
command-line compile it with bcc.exe. THEN you can run it. Then if you want
to use the Windows IDE, restart Windows and go though it all over again. Too
bad I got rid of BC++ 3.1 before I even realized there was no DOS IDE.
--
______ () si...@rci.ripco.com
/ / /\ /
--/ /_ _ / ) _ __. __ _. /_ _ __
(_/ / /_</_ /__/__</_(_/|_/ (_(__/ /_</_/ (_
"Hey, where'd that damned thing go? I just saw it!"
Kendall Beaman
[ Stuff deleted]
>Can anyone suggest any other _disadvantages_ of 4.0 Power-Pak. I will probably
>be linking in with work from other companies using Watcom, so how much would
>this complicate matters? One comment is that Borland is likely to out-live the
>other companies with extended DOS C compilers- so if possible it is best to
>stay with them. What do people think of this line?
>
>Peter
Well, I was one who bought Watcom because I wanted to create 32-bit protected
mode applications and my Borland 3.1 just didn't do it. One major problem
I've encountered is support. I use third party libraries and it was very
difficult to find a library that would support Watcom's Rational Systems
extender. Borland is much more supported and I can only guess/hope that this
Power-Pak will also be widely supported. If their Dos extender is stable and
supported I just may upgrade to Borland 4.0.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't mind what Congress does, as long as they don't do it in the
streets and frighten the horses. -- Patrick Campbell
bea...@andrews.edu
che...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
> Maybe I'm dense, but what exactly is it about the DOS IDE that
> everybody loves so much? I've got BC++ 3.1 and I can't really say
> that I love the DOS IDE. I can't say that I like the Windows IDE very
> much either, but what is it about the DOS one?
>
> Dave Roberts
> Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
> I/O and Network Products Division
> david....@amd.com
>
>
Well, basically people like the speed, efficiency, and simplicity of it. One of
the problems involved with developing DOS apps in a Windows environment is that
you have to contend with the added chance of Windows itself crashing, as well
as your compiler application. :) (and as everyone knows, Windows is far from
stable...)
There are some things that just cannot be run from Windows very easily without
the thing getting annoyed (usually I would guess, due to memory
requirements, but there are other aspects- interrupts etc. which might prove
problematic).
Fancy, nice looking windows are great, but if you simply want to get some code
typed quickly; or want to cut and paste between files frequently, it helps if
the screen updates at a reasonable rate...
That said, some aspects of Windows do actually appeal :) The ability to switch
to another (large) application without having to quit back into DOS would
sometimes help.
I've used both the DOS and the Windows IDE of 3.1, but mainly the DOS one; as
I'm writing a game with it. However, I have reached that point (as a large
number of people seem to) where 640K is just not enough. I don't really want to
lose an IDE and drop into DOS command-line (I can't really be bothered with
MAKE files et al.) so this announcement from Borland is quite interesting.
John Stelly
>everybody loves so much? I've got BC++ 3.1 and I can't really say
>that I love the DOS IDE. I can't say that I like the Windows IDE very
>much either, but what is it about the DOS one?
>
Well then you probably haven't used the DOS IDE enough. I'd have to say
that out of all of the development environments I've used, BC++3.1's DOS
IDE is by far the best for small projects and experimentation. The
Windows IDE in 4.0 is pretty good too, but it's too slow (IMHO). It
spends lots of time updating dialogs while it compiles. The command line
utils are much faster on the same code. It would probably run faster if
I had more than 8 megs, but...
Jay Stelly
yu...@netcom.com
Rainer Deyke
: In article <2rv8nm$9...@liberator.et.tudelft.nl>,
: JHD 'Bonzo' Keukelaar <bo...@warns.et.tudelft.nl> wrote:
: >What do you guys think? Which chance is bigger: A dos extender for 3.1,
: >_or_ a dos IDE for 4.0? I want both the IDE and the extender. :(
: I don't think either one is very likely. They're both in Borland's
: past. They should have been done before, but weren't and the market
: has moved past them. The reality is, with Chicago, there is no real
: DOS. It's just a part of Chicago, so why not make use of Windows as
: the IDE GUI?
: Maybe I'm dense, but what exactly is it about the DOS IDE that
: everybody loves so much? I've got BC++ 3.1 and I can't really say
: that I love the DOS IDE. I can't say that I like the Windows IDE very
: much either, but what is it about the DOS one?
It runs under DOS. Not all of us have pentiums. I'm still stuck with
a 16MHz 386. 2Mb RAM. Works fine when running most DOS apps, but
don't even think of running Windows.
--
+---------------------------------------------------------+
|"Who made you God to say, 'I'll take your life from you'"|
| - Metallica, "Ride the Lightning" |
| "It feeds; it grows; it clouds all that you will know" |
| - Metallica, "The God that Failed" |
| Rainer Deyke - rai...@mdddhd.fc.hp.com |
+---------------------------------------------------------+
David Andrews
>
> ...but what exactly is it about the DOS IDE that
> everybody loves so much? I've got BC++ 3.1 and I can't really say
> that I love the DOS IDE. I can't say that I like the Windows IDE very
> much either, but what is it about the DOS one?
It doesn't require MS-Windows.
--
David Andrews
d...@redbug.oau.org
gg
>Dave Roberts (rob...@angelo.amd.com) wrote:
>It runs under DOS. Not all of us have pentiums. I'm still stuck with
>a 16MHz 386. 2Mb RAM. Works fine when running most DOS apps, but
>don't even think of running Windows.
Others of us are stuck with 386sx16's with 4mb... Running q as our IDE
(with thelp in memory, it beats the IDE in speed and functionality with
all the approopriate macros programmed in).
I'll be running the Windows IDE soon (I just ordered BC++4.0) which
means that I'll probably buy a 486dlc40 m/b, JUST TO RUN WINDOZE.
What a waste (up until this point, I was able to code all my apps just
as easily on my old non-backlit, no-hard drive, 2 low density drive,
640k, V20 processor and no battery laptop with its mondo-cool 2 cololr
screen).
--
/~~~\ g...@superdec.uni.uiuc.edu /~~~\
( gg ) cross your eyes and align the ( gg )
\___/ the two symbols. \___/
Mark Rogers
> the IDE is nice looking, for me it's slower development. Mouse and
> Menu are fine but give me my functionality at a key press.
When I first used the IDE I made heavy use of the mouse - after all
that's how it is intended to be used! But I was working on a project
which used the serial ports, and that clashed with the mouse, so I
stopped using it. Once you get used to it (which took very little time)
there's no need to use the mouse at all.
Mark.
--
m...@holly.demon.co.uk Calling all members of the Lions or Leos
international organisations .... Please mail me!
Ron Bodkin
<che...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>That said, some aspects of Windows do actually appeal :) The ability to switch
>to another (large) application without having to quit back into DOS would
>sometimes help.
You could get this with the 3.1 Dos IDE by running it
(full-screen) under windows. That style of running the IDE has the
added advantage that instead of pointer errors, etc., crashing the
machine you'll typically just crash your DOS session in windows.
Ron
Ted Halmrast
>From: b...@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Brian Hook)
>Subject: Re: Borland Power Pack (DOS Extender for BC++ 4.0)
>Date: 26 May 1994 02:30:58 GMT
>In article <CqDKB...@amd.com> rob...@angelo.amd.com (Dave Roberts) writes:
> Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer,rec.games.programmer
> Path: usenet.ufl.edu!usenet.fiu.edu!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!pacbell.com!amdahl!amd!amdint.amd.com!angelo!roberts
> From: rob...@angelo.amd.com (Dave Roberts)
> Sender: use...@amd.com (NetNews Admin)
> Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Santa Clara, CA
> References: <bkirbyCp...@netcom.com> <1994May23...@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> <davidrCq...@netcom.com> <2rv8nm$9...@liberator.et.tudelft.nl>
> Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 20:16:34 GMT
> Lines: 23
> Xref: usenet.ufl.edu comp.os.msdos.programmer:38789 rec.games.programmer:25964
>> It's just a part of Chicago, so why not make use of Windows as
>> the IDE GUI?
>Because some of us hate the idea of using Windows simply to write code.
>Some of use prefer using a text mode editor because it's easier on the
>eyes.
>> Maybe I'm dense, but what exactly is it about the DOS IDE that
>> everybody loves so much? I've got BC++ 3.1 and I can't really say
>> that I love the DOS IDE. I can't say that I like the Windows IDE very
>> much either, but what is it about the DOS one?
>The DOS IDE was pleasant to use, didn't require that we install 11+MB of
>Windows to run, was easy on the eyes, was MEANT for DOS programming (i.e.
>Alt-F5 swapped to a full screen DOS screen so you could see your output),
>etc. etc.
May sound stupid, but my biggest gripe about using the Borland C++ 4.0 Windows
GUI IDE is that I am using a CTX 1760LR that has a slow-as-hell monitor
switching time so that I prefer switch graphics modes as little as possible.
I should swap monitors but other than the switching time the 1760 is a decent
monitor and it was inexpensive (and I'm poor).
Ted Halmrast
win...@whale.micro.umn.edu
Rainer Deyke
: In article <1994May28...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz>,
Windows doesn't need pointer errors, etc. to crash.
Nate Pendleton
BC3.1 DOS IDE would work with 4.0? I haven't installed my BC4.0 yet (waiting
for my new computer to get here), so I can't try it. Thanks!
OMAR
Kendall Bennett
>Unless you have quite a good graphics accelerator, speed. The DOS IDE is
>*so* much faster than the Windows IDE, with eg a standard Trident SVGA card.
Even with the fastest accelertors, it is still damn slow. It is not just
the speed of the graphics that slows it down - Windows itself puts quite
a burden on things, and compling under the Windows IDE is quite significantly
slower than compiling under DOS.
I am currently writing code for my contract in C++ using BC++ 4.0 and I
have one of the latest (very fast) Cirrus 5434 chips in an Orchid Kelvin 64
with 2Mb of DRAM, and I continue to do a lot of development of separate
modules that are not Windows specific using the BC++ 3.1 IDE under DOS
simply because my development time and productivity is so much greater.
Oh, and my machine has 8Mb of RAM and I have a 4Mb VLB caching controller
card and a WD 424Mb disk drive, and it is a 486DX2/66, so the machine is
no slouch. I also dont have smartdrive going as the cache controller works
better, and I have a 20Mb permanent swap patition.
Basically Windows is a very slow environment for doing development work
period. Under OS/2 I can run the DOS IDE in a DOS session and it runs
no slower than under normal DOS.
+-------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Kendall Bennett | Email: rc...@minyos.xx.rmit.edu.au |
| Software Engineer, SciTech Software | CIS: 100237,2213 |
| Unit 5, 106 Southbank Boulevard | Fax: +61 3 690 2137 |
| South Melbourne 3205 AUSTRALIA | |
+-------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
Richard Mazzaferri
>In article <CqDKB...@amd.com>, rob...@angelo.amd.com (Dave Roberts) writes:
>> Maybe I'm dense, but what exactly is it about the DOS IDE that
>> everybody loves so much? I've got BC++ 3.1 and I can't really say
>> that I love the DOS IDE. I can't say that I like the Windows IDE very
>> much either, but what is it about the DOS one?
>>
>... cause when a pointer go into no mans land, it takes lots less time to reboot
>and get back into the DOS IDE than to get back to the same spot in the Windows
>IDE ...
Of course, under Windows you can run your program in a DOS box. Then, when
your pointers go off into space, you kill the DOS box, start another one, and
no reboot time is required (most of the time).
Mazz.
Me? I prefer the Windows IDE. Can't get enough characters on a line under DOS
for _real_ programming :-)
--
Richard Mazzaferri Ph.D. student Uni. of Newcastle
Ph (049) 216254 ma...@faceng.newcastle.edu.au Australia.
Christopher Conrad
: In article <bkirbyCp...@netcom.com>, Bill Kirby writes:
: |>
: |> Today Borland announced the Power Pack for DOS, an add-on to
: |> Borland C++ 4.0 that includes the following:
: |>
: |> - royalty free DOS extender (16 and 32 bit)
: |> - Turbo Vision 2.0
: |> - updated BGI (with SVGA support)
: |>
Does anyone know if I can buy Power Pack and integrate Turbo Vision 2.0
into the Borland C++ 3.1 system? It seems that this would be cheaper
than buying the Application Framework 3.1.
Chris
Clarence Dold
: Does anyone know if I can buy Power Pack and integrate Turbo Vision 2.0
: into the Borland C++ 3.1 system? It seems that this would be cheaper
: than buying the Application Framework 3.1.
I feel like I'm in the book of the month club with Borland.
I've never paid more than $9.95 for an upgrade on CDROM ($29.95 on
diskette), but they seem to come out _way_ too often.
The power pack was more, but the upgrade from 3.1 to 4.0, and now 4.? were
only $9.95 each.
--
---
Clarence A Dold - do...@rahul.net
- Milpitas (near San Jose) & Napa CA.
William O. Nielsen
> : In article <bkirbyCp...@netcom.com>, Bill Kirby writes:
> : |>
> : |> Today Borland announced the Power Pack for DOS, an add-on to
> : |> Borland C++ 4.0 that includes the following:
> : |>
> : |> - royalty free DOS extender (16 and 32 bit)
> : |> - Turbo Vision 2.0
> : |> - updated BGI (with SVGA support)
> : |>
Does anyone know if there are plans to include this in future versions
of Borland C++ or better yet include it as a package with 4.0 so you can
buy both at one time (hopefully with a discount)...
--
-Bill Nielsen
"Armatak The Slayer--Your Friendly Neighborhood Anti-Paladin"
"I used to hate evil people, but now I'm their leader!"
"I'm not sure if I'm going to Heaven or Hell, but I sure
hope God grades on a curve."
"The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost never kicked Satan
out of Heaven because you need four for Euchre!"
Robert Barnhardt
>Does anyone know if there are plans to include this in future versions
>of Borland C++ or better yet include it as a package with 4.0 so you can
>buy both at one time (hopefully with a discount)...
enhancements were purposely split from BC4.0 for space and cost reasons.
For the better, as far as I'm concerned, even though I just ordered the
Powerpack. If I was one of the increasing number of programmers who don't
give a damn about DOS, I'd be awfully pissed off about paying the extra
$100 (introductory... supposedly $400 later) for tools I'd never use and
probably wouldn't even install.
rb
CMcknight
writes:
>I feel like I'm in the book of the month club with Borland.
>I've never paid more than $9.95 for an upgrade on CDROM ($29.95 on
>diskette), but they seem to come out _way_ too often.
>The power pack was more, but the upgrade from 3.1 to 4.0, and now
4.? were
>only $9.95 each.
Pesonally, I appreciate timely updates. If the compiler vendor finds
a bug, I want it fixed on my end as soon as possible and have no
problem dropping $10 (US) every quarter for an update.
Chuck
David Ransier
long time for a fix to show up.
And with regard to the price: you only have to buy the update if you want it
in fancy packaging. Borland posts these updates (not products like Power Pack)
to their FTP site and their BBS.
So you can get it for free!
As for the other updates, like 3.1 to 4.0; you can't possible expect to get
that for free, or even $10. It's a whole new product, and it includes a
lot of expensive pronted manuals.
I will concede, though, that Turbo Vision 2.0 should have been included with
4.0 rather than be a $99 option...and the $29 TASM should have been included
too....and there's probably something I forgot, but the DOS Extender IS a new
product.
David Ransier
--
+++++++++++++
David Ransier dav...@pdx.mentorg.com These comments are my own. I paid for
Office: (503) 685-1528 them. I own them. They're not my
Fax: (503) 685-7704 employers, and you can't have them.
+++++++++++++