SYMANTEC ANNOUNCES C++ 7.0!
Mr_G._Landweber_student_tel_2-73550
relating to Apple on CompuServe, and I came across the headline:
SYMANTEC ANNOUNCES SYMANTEC C++ 7.0 FOR MACINTOSH
According to the article, "Macintosh software developers can now write
C++ applications faster by using state-of-the-art visual programming
tools in Symantec C++ 7.0 for Macintosh, introduced today by Symantec"
The package includes the "Visual Architect", a new version of TCL, and
the "THINK Inspector". There is also a PowerPC cross development kit
available separately.
SRP is $499. Upgrade from Symantec C++ 6.0 is $149.95, and crossgrade
from THINK C or THINK Pascal is $199.95. The PowerPC kit is $100.
-- Greg "Buttons" Landweber
g...@maths.ox.ac.uk
Francis H. Schiffer 3rd
(Mr_G._Landweber_student_tel_2-73550) wrote:
> SRP is $499. Upgrade from Symantec C++ 6.0 is $149.95, and crossgrade
> from THINK C or THINK Pascal is $199.95. The PowerPC kit is $100.
Gee, I guess this upgrade policy is just what I needed to convince my wife
that it is time to move to Metrowerks. (She thought $200 was too much for
a new development system.)
skip
a Think C user
--
Francis H Schiffer 3rd schi...@stsci.edu - my opinions only, those of
sk...@dispair.stsci.edu stscic::schiffer - my employer are unknown to me
Tim Endres
: In article <GDL.94Ma...@stlawrence.maths>, g...@stlawrence.maths
: (Mr_G._Landweber_student_tel_2-73550) wrote:
: > SRP is $499. Upgrade from Symantec C++ 6.0 is $149.95, and crossgrade
: > from THINK C or THINK Pascal is $199.95. The PowerPC kit is $100.
: Gee, I guess this upgrade policy is just what I needed to convince my wife
: that it is time to move to Metrowerks. (She thought $200 was too much for
: a new development system.)
: skip
: a Think C user
Bye bye Think...
David M. Palmer
In article <GDL.94Ma...@stlawrence.maths>, g...@stlawrence.maths
(Mr_G._Landweber_student_tel_2-73550) wrote:
> SRP is $499. Upgrade from Symantec C++ 6.0 is $149.95, and crossgrade
> from THINK C or THINK Pascal is $199.95. The PowerPC kit is $100.
Now would be a good time for Metrowerks to announce their competitive
upgrade.
--
David M. Palmer pal...@alumni.caltech.edu
pal...@tgrs.gsfc.nasa.gov
Clipper: Privacy for people who have nothing to hide.
Dan Eldred
Steven Reiser, P.E.
(David M. Palmer) wrote:
> ti...@garnet.msen.com (Tim Endres) writes:
>
> In article <GDL.94Ma...@stlawrence.maths>, g...@stlawrence.maths
> (Mr_G._Landweber_student_tel_2-73550) wrote:
>
> > SRP is $499. Upgrade from Symantec C++ 6.0 is $149.95, and crossgrade
> > from THINK C or THINK Pascal is $199.95. The PowerPC kit is $100.
WHAT!!
For $149.95 it had better be a RADICAL upgrade!!
I have been thinking 7.0 would be a MAJOR bug fix upgrade.
Apparently there is more than that or else we are being ripped of as Apple
does with there so-called system upgrades where you get almost nothing for
a price.
Steve
John Nagle
>In article <GDL.94Ma...@stlawrence.maths>, g...@stlawrence.maths
>(Mr_G._Landweber_student_tel_2-73550) wrote:
>> SRP is $499. Upgrade from Symantec C++ 6.0 is $149.95, and crossgrade
>> from THINK C or THINK Pascal is $199.95. The PowerPC kit is $100.
Tried calling Symantec about the supposed bug fix upgrade.
Spent 15 minutes on hold on the 800 customer support number. They
referred me to 617-275-4800 x 7, which is a voicemail system.
Left my name, mailing address, etc. Someone called back and claimed I should
call the 800 number for customer support. I asked to speak to a supervisor.
They claimed one would call me. I'm still waiting.
John Nagle
Philip Machanick
(Mr_G._Landweber_student_tel_2-73550) wrote:
> I was just scanning for news articles (real world news, not USENET)
> relating to Apple on CompuServe, and I came across the headline:
>
> SYMANTEC ANNOUNCES SYMANTEC C++ 7.0 FOR MACINTOSH
>
> According to the article, "Macintosh software developers can now write
> C++ applications faster by using state-of-the-art visual programming
> tools in Symantec C++ 7.0 for Macintosh, introduced today by Symantec"
Good. So when's the free C++ updater for those of us who bought 6.0 going
to appear (I just checked sumex and couldn't find it)?
--
Philip Machanick phi...@cs.wits.ac.za
Department of Computer Science, University of the Witwatersrand
2050 Wits, South Africa
phone 27(11)716-3309 fax 27(11)339-7965
Doug Knowles
rei...@pmafire.inel.gov writes:
>For $149.95 it had better be a RADICAL upgrade!!
>
>I have been thinking 7.0 would be a MAJOR bug fix upgrade.
>
>Apparently there is more than that or else we are being ripped of as
Apple
>does with there so-called system upgrades where you get almost nothing
for
>a price.
In article <philip-09...@mackerel.cs.wits.ac.za> Philip Machanick,
phi...@cs.wits.ac.za writes:
>Good. So when's the free C++ updater for those of us who bought 6.0 going
>to appear (I just checked sumex and couldn't find it)?
7.0 adds major features in addition to substantial improvements to the
C++ compiler.
The $149 upgrade buys the Visual Architect interface builder/program
generator, a run-time object inspector which is a huge benefit in
debugging (I can say this; I didn't work on it ;-)), TCL 2.0, which
updates the TCL to "real" C++ objects (using MI, constructors &
destructors, and templates) and adds functional improvements (object
I/O support, AppleEvent support) with good compatibility with TCL
1.1.3.
It's Symantec's position that 6.0.x users are entitled to the compiler
improvements, and the patch will be available when (or before) 7.0 is
available.
------------
Doug Knowles All opinions strictly my own.
Language Products Group Nobody else wants 'em.
Symantec Corporation
Internet: do...@bedford.symantec.com
joe gregor
(David M. Palmer) wrote:
>ti...@garnet.msen.com (Tim Endres) writes:
>
>In article <GDL.94Ma...@stlawrence.maths>, g...@stlawrence.maths
>(Mr_G._Landweber_student_tel_2-73550) wrote:
>
>> SRP is $499. Upgrade from Symantec C++ 6.0 is $149.95, and crossgrade
>> from THINK C or THINK Pascal is $199.95. The PowerPC kit is $100.
>
>
>Now would be a good time for Metrowerks to announce their competitive
>upgrade.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Joseph Gregor |
gre...@ccf.nrl.navy.mil | THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
t...@eng.umd.edu |
________________________________|_______________________________________________
Rich Siegel
>>In article <GDL.94Ma...@stlawrence.maths>, g...@stlawrence.maths
>>(Mr_G._Landweber_student_tel_2-73550) wrote:
>>
>>> SRP is $499. Upgrade from Symantec C++ 6.0 is $149.95, and crossgrade
>>> from THINK C or THINK Pascal is $199.95. The PowerPC kit is $100.
>>
>>Now would be a good time for Metrowerks to announce their competitive
>>upgrade.
>>
> HERE, HERE .......
THERE, THERE. (i.e. learn to spell. :-]) If you're signifying vigorous
agreement, it's "Hear! Hear!", or, if you're in the British
Parliament, "Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!". :-)
I don't speak for either Symantec or Metrowerks, nor work for either
of them. Now that I have -that- out of the way, I doubt that
Metrowerks will offer a competitive upgrade.
For one thing, the SRP of Code Warrior Bronze is $199. That's already
cheaper than Symantec C++. It's only $50 more than the Symantec C++
7.0 upgrade. Code Warrior Gold, which is Code Warrior Bronze plus
PowerPC compilers, is $399, i.e. $200 more than Bronze, and cheaper
than either Symantec C++ or Symantec C++ plus Symantec's PowerPC
tools. The economics alone don't provide a compelling reason for a
competitive upgrade.
Regardless of pricing, there are marketing and political
considerations, which I don't pretend to know in depth, and about
which I can only speculate.
For one thing, it's not as if Symantec C++ isn't supported. It makes
sense to offer a discount upgrade/sidegrade when the competing product
is a dusty relic that hasn't been significantly improved (or even
changed) in a long time, but for an actively growing and supported
product, it makes little different. Thus, a sidegrade strategy works
well for BBEdit (whose competitors are QUED/M and Vantage, Q. E. D.),
but those conditions don't apply to Code Warrior with respect to
Symantec C++.
(An example of this in action was the offer that TML Systems ran for a
while, to get people to switch to their Pascal compiler; if you tore
off the front cover of your THINK Pascal manual, and included it with
your order, TML would give you a substantial discount on TML Pascal.
Know where TML Systems is now? I rest my case.*)
Finally, there's the "number one/number two" phenomenon. Like it or
not, Symantec is "number one" (i.e. the leader) in the Mac tools
market at the present time. By taking potshots at "number one",
"number two" is basically saying "We're not good enough to have our
product stand on its own merits, so we're going to attack the leader,
try and bring him down to our level, and hope that convinces
you". This is -definitely- not the case with Metrowerks: not only are
they too smart to sink to such a strategy, they don't have to; their
product stands well on its own merits.
In contrast of what everyone else in the known universe has been
doing, Metrowerks (either the whole company, or any of their
employees) has not made a single negative comment about either
Symantec or their products in a public forum. This speaks volumes
about their collective professionalism and intelligence. (The converse
is true of Symantec and their personnel as well.)
R.
(* This is -not- an attack on TML Systems or anyone who worked there;
I know many of the people who used to work there, and have the highest
respect for all of them. It was just an object lession, that's all...)
--
Rich Siegel % sie...@netcom.com % Principal, Bare Bones Software
--> For information about BBEdit, finger bbe...@world.std.com <--
"...yeah, I inhaled, and then I drank the bong water. So what're
you gonna do about it?" - Dennis Miller, on Bill Clinton
Joseph G. Husk
>: > from THINK C or THINK Pascal is $199.95. The PowerPC kit is $100.
>
>: Gee, I guess this upgrade policy is just what I needed to convince my wife
>: that it is time to move to Metrowerks. (She thought $200 was too much for
>: a new development system.)
>: skip
>: a Think C user
This is just ridiculous...
I purchased Think C 4.0 (only like 2 years ago) for around $110.00
from mail order. To upgrade to 5.0 was $99 and to buy it through
mail-order around $110.00. This 5.0 upgrade was around 1 year after
4.0. And then 1 year after that 6.0 and 6.0++ comes out with a
similar price +$50.00 or so. This is total BS!
Upgrade paths should be moderate but not outrageous. Now to top
everything off, outcomes 7.0++... I've always enjoyed the Symantic C
programming environment (if you call it that), but I've been getting
the impression that Symantic is release happy... and not very customer
oriented.
Granted I know they've spent a lot of time on their projects and
should make money off of it, but common... can anyone tell me that
upgrading from 4.0 -> 5.0 is really worth $100.00. I think not. To
date if I had bought every upgrade from 4.0 to the upcomming 7.0++ I'd
have spent around $500.00 and would have felt extremely cheated.
I for one will be switching compilers when I purchase the PowerPC.
Symantic has lost my support, my money, and any would be buyers that
I come across.
-joseph
Harry A. Reinke
thing. I should have known it when there was no major bug fix within 6
months (6.01 still has too many bugs). I have already decided to buy
Metrowerk, now all I need to do is buy a CD ROM drive.
Perhaps THINK Pascal will be bought by a compnay that cares about customers.
Matt Mora
>THERE, THERE. (i.e. learn to spell. :-]) If you're signifying vigorous
[deleted text]
>respect for all of them. It was just an object lession, that's all...)
Those who comment on spelling, will always be bit by the spelling bug. :-)
Xavier
--
___________________________________________________________
Matthew Xavier Mora Matt...@qm.sri.com
SRI International mxm...@unix.sri.com
333 Ravenswood Ave Menlo Park, CA. 94025
Todd Jonker
>
> Now would be a good time for Metrowerks to announce their competitive
> upgrade.
>
They don't have one, as my several email exchanges with the (very helpful)
folks at Metrowerks have found.
This did not stop me from ordering my CD this morning. To me, the peace of
mind is well worth $200.
Symantec just lost a (formerly) very faithful customer; I think I have
upgraded LightspeedC/ThinkC about six times over the last several years.
No more, though. I'm sick of this nonsense of announcing a major upgrade
before fixing a year-old release. Idiots.
.T. ...Very excited about diving into CodeWarrior this weekend...
. . . Todd V. Jonker . . . . Systems Designer . . .
. . . to...@clarit.com . . . . CLARITECH Corp. . . .
Paul Ferguson
jh...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu writes:
> Upgrade paths should be moderate but not outrageous. Now to top
> everything off, outcomes 7.0++...
I agree! Less than a year ago, I paid $150 to upgrade to Sym C++
6.0. The reality is that what I paid for was a minor bug fix
to THINK C, given that the C++ compiler was all but unusable.
Now, Symantec wants ANOTHER $150, so that I can get a "new,
improved" C++ compiler.
They are obviously gambling that their customers will simply
pay the piper (again) to get the product they should have received
in the first place. It's an old sales practice known as
"bait and switch".
Goodbye, Symantec.
--fergy
Jerome Chan
What does it offer?
It would be an interesting exercise to compare it side by side with
Metrowork's C++ Application framework.
--
The Evil Tofu (Only Human)
Steven Lane
>This is just ridiculous...
I have to agree.
> I purchased Think C 4.0 (only like 2 years ago) for around $110.00
>from mail order. To upgrade to 5.0 was $99 and to buy it through
>mail-order around $110.00. This 5.0 upgrade was around 1 year after
>4.0. And then 1 year after that 6.0 and 6.0++ comes out with a
>similar price +$50.00 or so. This is total BS!
So that's a grand total of about $350.00 for three major releases of what
has been, up to the SC++ 6.0 debacle, one of the best development envi-
ronments available for the Mac. And you're complaining? Sounds like a
pretty good deal to me. You get a C++ compiler into the bargain -- granted
it doesn't work at the moment, but the update to (the presumably functional)
7.0 is free to owners of 6.
> Upgrade paths should be moderate but not outrageous.
Agreed. $100 for major new functionality is moderate. I can't speak to
the TC4->5 issue, but I think TC5->6 added "major new functionality," plus
a sort of a coupon for a working C++ compiler. :->
>Now to top
>everything off, outcomes 7.0++... I've always enjoyed the Symantic C
>programming environment (if you call it that), but I've been getting
>the impression that Symantic is release happy... and not very customer
>oriented.
You seem offended that Symantec updates their products. How dare they?
Sorry for the heavy sarcasm, but come on -- no one is forcing you to buy
updates you don't want. Don't want C++ or the Project Manager? Stick with TC5.
Don't want the new TCL, interface builders etc.? Just download the C++
compiler update. But if you do want the new features, how can you complain
when they cost money?
--
----
Steve Lane
University of Chicago, Department of History
sg...@midway.uchicago.edu
Rich Siegel
>In article <siegelCM...@netcom.com> sie...@netcom.com (Rich Siegel) writes:
>
>>THERE, THERE. (i.e. learn to spell. :-]) If you're signifying vigorous
>
>[deleted text]
>
>>respect for all of them. It was just an object lession, that's all...)
>
>
>Those who comment on spelling, will always be bit by the spelling bug. :-)
Uh, well, it was a typo, as differentiated from a mis-spelling. :-)
I meant to say "lesion", as anyone could tell. ;-) ;-) ;-)
R.
Joseph Manuel Finete
In article <CMF3D...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jh...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (Joseph G. Husk) writes:
>This is just ridiculous...
> I purchased Think C 4.0 (only like 2 years ago) for around $110.00
>from mail order. To upgrade to 5.0 was $99 and to buy it through
>mail-order around $110.00. This 5.0 upgrade was around 1 year after
>4.0. And then 1 year after that 6.0 and 6.0++ comes out with a
>similar price +$50.00 or so. This is total BS!
> Upgrade paths should be moderate but not outrageous. Now to top
>everything off, outcomes 7.0++... I've always enjoyed the Symantic C
>programming environment (if you call it that), but I've been getting
>the impression that Symantic is release happy... and not very customer
>oriented.
You bought TC 4.0 two years ago? I got 5.0 two (or was it three) years ago.
If you bought 4.0 after 5.0 came out (or like a month or two before) then
you should have been eligible for a free upgrade. Also, you will be able to
get the 7.0++ compiler fix for free. You only pay if you want the new
features.
--
Joe Finete
jfi...@cats.ucsc.edu
Chong Richard Ng Kim
I agree. The price is simply too high for the upgrade. I already spent
loads of $ in order to go from THINK 5.0 to C++ 6.0. Now they want even
more? Maybe $50 - $100 but NOT $149.95! Forget it!
So, could someone please post the phone # and (email & snail mail) address
for Metrowerks? I think they have a new customer coming their way...
RC :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard N.K. Chong Richar...@cmac.eastern.com
University of Toronto a209...@cdf.utoronto.ca
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Mora
>Perhaps THINK Pascal will be bought by a compnay that cares about customers.
Let hope Rich will take it over since he's the last one to work on it.
Maybe he stashed away a copy of the source before he left... :-)
Brad Andrews
]In article <CMF3D...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> Joseph G. Husk,
]jh...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu writes:
]> Upgrade paths should be moderate but not outrageous. Now to top
]> everything off, outcomes 7.0++...
]
]I agree! Less than a year ago, I paid $150 to upgrade to Sym C++
]6.0. The reality is that what I paid for was a minor bug fix
]to THINK C, given that the C++ compiler was all but unusable.
]
]Now, Symantec wants ANOTHER $150, so that I can get a "new,
]improved" C++ compiler.
Can't you people READ? They have said the upgrade to the C++ compiler
will be free. Look at that as a bug fix if you will.
The upgrade cost is for the other elements, such as the visual designer
and the (I assume) updated project manager.
]
]They are obviously gambling that their customers will simply
]pay the piper (again) to get the product they should have received
]in the first place. It's an old sales practice known as
]"bait and switch".
Were you supposed to have received a visual designer in 6.0?
I never saw an ad that mentioned it.
Though part of it is Symantec's fault for their past mistakes,
nothing they do know, save giving everything away for the next
few years (if that), would get some people who post here to listen.
:(
---
Brad Andrews
brad.a...@cas.org
All opinions are strictly mine
E.J. Draper
a209...@cdf.toronto.edu writes:
>I agree. The price is simply too high for the upgrade. I already spent
>loads of $ in order to go from THINK 5.0 to C++ 6.0. Now they want even
>more? Maybe $50 - $100 but NOT $149.95! Forget it!
I feel the same way. Besides, I!m much happier with the Metrowerks
environment and product !vision! than I am with SC++. In addition to
these considerations, I have a deep seated resentment for the amount of
time it took Symantec to bring an integrated C++ compiler to the Mac
market and what has happened since.
SC++ has found a position on my shelf next to ObjectMaster and all those
other development tools of past.
|E|J- ED DRAPER
rEpar|D|<- Radiologic/Pathologic Institute
The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
dra...@utmdacc.mda.uth.tmc.edu
Yan Tony Lee
wrote:
>
> Given statements such as this, one could reasonably conclude that you
> have little to now understanding of how the software business works.
>
(deleted text)
Business is business.
If those complainers represent a large part of your business, Symantec is
in big trouble. I have never seen a company flamed so incensively as I
have seen on this newsgroup. C++ 6.0 received mixed reviews from what I
have read. If The reviews for 7.0 are not favorable, Symantec might as
well kiss its ass goodbye and bow down to victory to Metroworks.
How is Metroworks like? I have never tried it before.
--
BLAHBLAHBLAH Hedgehog
Tony
y-t...@acs.bu.edu
Paul Ferguson
rb...@cas.org writes:
> Can't you people READ? They have said the upgrade to the C++
> compiler will be free. Look at that as a bug fix if you will.
>
Yes, I know that Symantec has promised an updated C++ compiler
and I applaud them for that. But that's only one part of
what's wrong with 6.0.
What about TCL? I've seen no mention that version 2.0 will
be included in the "free" upgrade, yet TCL is an integral
part of the product. Having a working C++ compiler is nice,
but an application framework like TCL is a very important
component for object oriented application development.
When 6.0 was released, Symantec promised that their C++
compiler would be fully compatible with TCL. Will the 7.0
compiler be tested with the older TCL? Will 7.0 even work
with 1.1.3? Will Symantec provide any bug fixes to 1.1.3?
It still has a pretty long list of known bugs.
It looks like TCL 1.x is dead, and that in order to have
any hopes of getting a better version of it, I will have to
buy another $150 upgrade. THAT is "bait and switch".
--fergy
Paul Ferguson
Kim, a209...@cdf.toronto.edu writes:
> I agree. The price is simply too high for the upgrade. I already
spent
> loads of $ in order to go from THINK 5.0 to C++ 6.0. Now they want
even
> more? Maybe $50 - $100 but NOT $149.95! Forget it!
When you consider that ALL that $150 is going into Symantec's
pocket, it's even more outrageous. I would venture that they
make more money from an upgrade order than they do selling new
copies, which has several middlemen (distributors, retailers)
in the process.
It's an interesting sales approach: gouging your loyal customers
while pretending that they are getting a "good deal". It
works if you view your customers the way P.T. Barnum did.
Can you say "ripoff"? I knew you could...
--fergy
Rich Siegel
>
>When you consider that ALL that $150 is going into Symantec's
>pocket, it's even more outrageous. I would venture that they
>make more money from an upgrade order than they do selling new
>copies, which has several middlemen (distributors, retailers)
>in the process.
Given statements such as this, one could reasonably conclude that you
have little to now understanding of how the software business works.
Beyond the cost of the package itself (several floppies, and well over
a thousand pages of printed & bound documentation), there's the cost
incurred by mailing upgrade notices, handling incoming orders, and (by
the way), let's not forget that this new version was actually written
by human beings who get paid salary and benefits while they work, and
who need to have light to work by, and heated or air-conditioned rooms
to work in, and computers to work on.
Every time Symantec (or some other company) announces an upgrade,
there's always someone (or more than one) who complains about the cost
of upgrading, without fully understanding all of the issues.
Michael A. Walker
jdow...@ccmail.gsfc.nasa.gov (John Downing) wrote:
>
> >Can't you people READ? They have said the upgrade to the C++ compiler
> >will be free. Look at that as a bug fix if you will.
>
> I wonder if the upgrade form (asking for the $149) that is mailed to all of the
> registered owners will mention that you can get the compiler fixed for free.
> Or will those without access to Internet have to blindly pay the $150.
When the 6.0 -> 6.0.1 upgrade came out, you were able to call Symantec to
get an update disk
sent to you FREE OF CHARGE. I know!!! I DID IT!!!!! Most likely, they are
going to do this
again. It would be stupid to think that Symantec who, in my experience,
stands behind
their products and will do everything (within reason of course) to satisfy
its customers.
Personally, I wish that all of the whinning and whimpering about the
upgrade would
end. Why don't everyone simply wait for the official announcement about
the upgrade policy
to come out and stop all this "he said.../she said..." @!%#. I don't have
to tell you how much
this crap is a complete waste of bandwidth. This newsgroup should be
geered towards
Mac programming issues, not continuous bitching (please pardon my language)
about
an upgrade policy that has not OFFICIALLY announced.
--
Michael A. Walker
New York University
wal...@acf2.nyu.edu
==============================================------------------------8-;
main() {int x,y,k;char *b=" .:,;!/>)|&IH%*#@";double
cr,ci,zr,zi,temp,cx,cy;
for(y=30;puts(""),cy=y*0.1-1.5,y-->=0;){for(x=0;cx=x*0.04-2,zr=0,zi=0,x++<75;)
{for(cr=cx,ci=cy,k=0;temp=zr*zr-zi*zi+cr,zi=2*zr*zi+ci,zr=temp,k<112;k++)
if(zr*zr+zi*zi>10)break;printf("%c",b[k%16]);}}} /* try this on for
size!! */
Peter K. Stys
crossgrade
>>>: > from THINK C or THINK Pascal is $199.95. The PowerPC kit is $100.
I'm new to usenet and I can't believe what I hear about 7.0! Another $150
for an upgrade, to a compiler that's gone thru half a dozen revisions and
*still* comes up with "Debugging info not available" in the debugger
every 4th or 5th time I try to run a source file? Not to mention a
zillion little (and not so little) bugs that have driven me crazy over
the years, tearing my code apart only to learn that either their library
or debugger is at fault. Where's CodeWarrior?
-- Peter K. Stys
John Downing
>From: rb...@cas.org (Brad Andrews)
>Subject: Re: SYMANTEC ANNOUNCES C++ 7.0!
>Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 18:08:22 GMT
>In article 7...@golden.kaleida.com, Paul Ferguson <pfer...@kaleida.com> () writes:
>]
>]Now, Symantec wants ANOTHER $150, so that I can get a "new,
>]improved" C++ compiler.
>Can't you people READ? They have said the upgrade to the C++ compiler
>will be free. Look at that as a bug fix if you will.
I wonder if the upgrade form (asking for the $149) that is mailed to all of the
registered owners will mention that you can get the compiler fixed for free.
Or will those without access to Internet have to blindly pay the $150.
>Brad Andrews
Rich Siegel
>have little to now understanding of how the software business works.
Ack. Someone taped my fingers together while I wasn't
looking. Honest. :-)
M. Scott Smith
>
>I'm new to usenet and I can't believe what I hear about 7.0! Another $150
>for an upgrade, to a compiler that's gone thru half a dozen revisions and
>*still* comes up with "Debugging info not available" in the debugger
>every 4th or 5th time I try to run a source file? Not to mention a
>zillion little (and not so little) bugs that have driven me crazy over
>the years, tearing my code apart only to learn that either their library
>or debugger is at fault. Where's CodeWarrior?
Well, Symantec C++ v6.0 (the first C++ compiler) has gone through
*one* revision, to 6.0.1. (Granted, it was originaly Zortech C++, but
by the time Symantec got their hands on it, it hasn't been revised
a dozen times.) And Symantec C++ v6.0 has been out one year (unless
you were using the Zortech compiler previously?). I'm not aware of many
major bugs in Think C.
"Debugging info not available" will show up if you don't fill in the
diamonds next to source file names. The default is that they're not
filled in for you. When you fill in the diamonds, the compiler produces
information along with the object code that is used by the debugger.
(This is documented in the manuals.)
I have never witnessed any bug in this process, and I've used SC++
extensively.
While I can't (and won't) make any judgment on your part, I will venture
to say (as I have before) that many people are quick to blame their own
bugs on Symantec C++, just because they've caught wind of all the bad
publicity Symantec has been receiving. When a fire starts, it spreads.
And finally, Symantec has stated that there will be free compiler upgrades
to v7.0. This won't give you some of the new "features" (such as an
improved TPM, TCL 2.0, etc.), but you didn't pay for those features in
the first place. (And any complaining about not getting new features in
a functional upgrade will just remind me of all the whining on the Newton
newsgroup about people upset that Apple actually came out with a new
Newton.)
Come on folks, Symantec knows very well that we're upset, and you don't
need to announce to the world that you're switching over to Metrowerks.
The sales figures will speak that for both Metrowerks and Symantec.
As Mac developers, we have everything to gain by having (at least) two
companies working on development tools. The Mac market is aching for
developer tools. Cutthroat competition would be a shot in the arm for
us.
If you all keep ranting and raving about Symantec, you might very well
encourage _management_ at Symantec to ditch all efforts in the area of
compiler development. From experience we know there's still great people
working at Symantec -- they're not management; they're on your side, and
they're doing the best they can, given the potentially flawed philosophy
of Symantec management. And keep in mind that CodeWarrior is still in
infancy; it's a new compiler, it's still in beta form, and has a lot
that needs to be added. But I'll be the first to admit that I've been
very impressed with Metrowerks so far.
I'm not saying that there aren't major problems with SC++ 6.0.x. I'm
not saying that I'm any less infuriated than you that I paid $150 for it
(although I do question how many "devastating" bugs it really has). I'm
not saying that we shouldn't be upset that 7.0 is coming out before 6.0
was fixed. I'm not saying that we should remain loyal to Symantec.
But we will all lose if Symantec jumps ship, and everyone's flaming
seems to suggest that this is what they want.
Just my thoughts.. I for one am sick of reading regurgitated Symantec
"me too!" flaming that adds no new information.
Scott
---
M. Scott Smith (mss...@afterlife.ncsc.mil || ums...@mcs.drexel.edu)
Mac developer. Student. Ski bum. Not responsible for the national debt.
Johnathon Suker
mss...@afterlife.ncsc.mil (M. Scott Smith) wrote:
> "Debugging info not available" will show up if you don't fill in the
> diamonds next to source file names. The default is that they're not
> filled in for you. When you fill in the diamonds, the compiler produces
> information along with the object code that is used by the debugger.
> (This is documented in the manuals.)
Actually, this will also happend when you modify the code of a project
outside of the TPM and DO NOT "Bring Up To Date" before running with the
debugger. This has bitten me more than once, when I thought I was looking
at the new changed and not seeing them in the debugger.
> And finally, Symantec has stated that there will be free compiler upgrades
> to v7.0. This won't give you some of the new "features" (such as an
> improved TPM, TCL 2.0, etc.), but you didn't pay for those features in
> the first place. (And any complaining about not getting new features in
Unfortunately they have also stated that you will only be getting the C++
compiler for free, no new headers, etc that have changed (i.e. the
Universal Headers) with the introduction of writing PPC ready code (in a
letter to me on e of the Symantec people basically said, Why do you need
the universal headers when you wont be able to run our PPC compiler in the
6.0 PM).
Unfortunately they are doing to little to late (and I have been a user
since version 4.0).
Johnathon
Jerry Wilcox
<pfer...@kaleida.com> wrote:
> When you consider that ALL that $150 is going into Symantec's
> pocket, it's even more outrageous. I would venture that they
> make more money from an upgrade order than they do selling new
> copies, which has several middlemen (distributors, retailers)
> in the process.
>
1) The programmers to work for free on producing the upgrade and the new
components that are being shipped with the upgrade, not to mention the
free facilities, computers, and tools that they used to do the work?
2) The free packaging, floppy disks, printing (assuming that the upgrade
*will* come with documentation?
3) The free mailing of upgrade notices?
4) The free services of an order fulfillment service?
5) The free shipping of upgrade orders?
and about a million other things I have forgotten/didn't bother to list?
With your firm grasp of the costs of doing business, I'm sure you'll go far
in this life.
--
Jerry Wilcox == Jerry....@ucop.edu
I don't speak for the University and it doesn't speak for me.
Christopher Gunn
> Every time Symantec (or some other company) announces an upgrade,
> there's always someone (or more than one) who complains about the cost
> of upgrading, without fully understanding all of the issues.
It seems to me that perfectly reasonable people could properly
feel that they received essentially zero value for the 6.0 'upgrade'
and that it would be only basic fairness for Symantec to sell
the 6.0-->7.0 upgrade for materials/shipping costs ($30-40?).
People in this boat would be those who got the 6.0 version
largely or exclusively for the C++ side of it. Conversely, people
who got the 6.0 version primarily for the C side of it got reasonably
fair value for their money.
I don't know how these groups can be sorted out, except that
those of us in the ripped-off segment are unlikely to shell out
$150 more! (I'm not sure the free 7.0 C++ compiler-fix really
addresses the larger problem, since TCL would seem a pretty
integral part of the product, and its not-C++-ness was part of
6.0x's shortcomings.)
The development tools business is a tough one in which to make
much money, and a world in which Symantec drops out of it is
unlikely to be a better world than the one we have. *However*,
if the 6.0-->6.01 version had been a *car* model, it would have
been recalled in a shot and fixed wholly at the manufacturer's
considerable expense.
There isn't a Lemon Law for software (I doubt if many people reading
a _developers'_ group would push for one!), but it doesn't seem
evil or even unreasonable to expect Symantec to admit C++ 6.0x
was a lemon and to ask them to make it right comprehensively.
They can get back to making money with a PowerPC code generator,
a 7.5 version with solid exception-handling, etc.
Christopher Gunn Molecular Graphics and Modeling Laboratory
1k1...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu University of Kansas
Phone: 913-864-4428 or -4495 Malott Hall
Lawrence, KS 66045
Maarten J Meijer
jh...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (Joseph G. Husk) wrote:
> To
> date if I had bought every upgrade from 4.0 to the upcomming 7.0++ I'd
> have spent around $500.00 and would have felt extremely cheated.
been very happy until now (except for the 6.0 glitch being fixed by the
free compiler upgrade).
The new 7.0 is worth it, especially the object inspector!
Maarten
--
[][][][][][][][][][ mame...@knoware.nl ][][][][][][][][][][][;-)
Phil Mills
[...]
>, TCL 2.0, which
>updates the TCL to "real" C++ objects (using MI, constructors &
>destructors, and templates) and adds functional improvements (object
>I/O support, AppleEvent support) with good compatibility with TCL
>1.1.3.
>It's Symantec's position that 6.0.x users are entitled to the compiler
>improvements, and the patch will be available when (or before) 7.0 is
>available.
If Symantec also takes the position that 6.0.x users are entitled to a
version of TCL which supports '"real" C++ objects' some of my respect
for the company may return. That lack has been the biggest obstacle
preventing use of the current C++ compiler and the main reason that I
feel the money I spent on the *last* upgrade was wasted.
So....
Will the package that upgrades the 6.0.x C++ compiler include a class
library that can be used and built upon using the various C++ features
that you've listed above?
Juan Ingles
quit hogging all that bong water to yerself
Juan Ingles
<DACRXL01...@tcp30.dx.deere.com>
--
Proteus Ventures, Inc. - Computer Software Consulting and Development
1514 Oriole Ave * Waterloo, IA 50701 * (319) 232-0985
Paul Ferguson
> 2) The free packaging, ...
> 3) The free mailing of ...
> 4) The free services of ...
> 5) The free shipping of ...
>
Incredible. If you believe that someone participating in
an Internet newsgroup on programming tools doesn't understand
that it costs money to produce a product, then you have a
far weaker grasp on reality than you accuse me of. How you
read this into my message is really beyond me.
The point I was making (which you obviously missed entirely)
is that Symantec is looking to make a very handsome profit off
upgrades, from the same people that they profitted from only
months ago. Rather than acknowledge that people who bought
the 6.0 upgrade and received an unusuable product should
get something for their patience, they instead are taking the
approach of "let's get 'em again".
There are many other pricing and product schemes they could
have chosen, but this one really smacks of bait and switch,
a sales practice that is illegal in some situations and
unethical in any case.
--paul
Brian R Bezanson
> should make money off of it, but common... can anyone tell me that
> upgrading from 4.0 -> 5.0 is really worth $100.00. I think not. To
> date if I had bought every upgrade from 4.0 to the upcomming 7.0++ I'd
> have spent around $500.00 and would have felt extremely cheated.
This is a business Joseph, not everything is free. Develop tools by and
large for the Mac are inexpensive when you consider the size of the user
base. As a professional developer a $150 update is nothing when I can
create software with it, especially if it saves you time like 7.0 with
Visual Architect will.
==============================================================
Brian R Bezanson "MacDude"
Management Graphics Phone: +1 612 854 1220
1401 E 79th Street Fax: +1 612 851 6159
Minneapolis, MN 55425-1129 Email: beza...@mgi.com
Brian R Bezanson
(Jerome Chan) wrote:
>
> Just what is this new TCL 2.0 class library?
> What does it offer?
From what I've read in MacWeek, InfoWorld, CRN, and others:
1) C++ based--no Object Pascal ties and much flatter hierarchy.
2) Multiple inheritance, constructors, destructors.
3) Bedrock exception code and Bedrock Memory Manager.
4) Apple Object Model support built in at the CApplication level so
applications can be easily scripted, AppleScript/Event aware, and
recordable.
5) Lots of template based classes, bug fixes, and more...
6) Supports Universal Headers and thus compiles on PowerPC with THINK's
PowerPC
SDK that was announced.
Phil Shapiro
pfer...@kaleida.com writes:
>What about TCL? I've seen no mention that version 2.0 will
>be included in the "free" upgrade, yet TCL is an integral
>part of the product. Having a working C++ compiler is nice,
>but an application framework like TCL is a very important
>component for object oriented application development.
As far as I know, the TCL will not be included. However, the TCL has
changed a lot, and we would probably have to send out new manuals,
plus the new visual tool, etc., if you were really going to get a lot
of use out of it. The TCL now uses templates, MI, is OSA scriptable
and recordable, and has a number of other code reorganizations.
I hope that the distinction between TCL 1.1.3 -> TCL 2.0 vs. C++ 6.0.2
-> C++ 7.0 is pretty clear. C++ 7.0 contains bug fixes, tons of 'em;
the TCL 2.0 is a major revision that contains many more new features
as well as bug fixes.
>When 6.0 was released, Symantec promised that their C++
>compiler would be fully compatible with TCL. Will the 7.0
>compiler be tested with the older TCL? Will 7.0 even work
>with 1.1.3? Will Symantec provide any bug fixes to 1.1.3?
>It still has a pretty long list of known bugs.
As far as I know, there will not be any bug fixes to TCL 1.1.3. It
will still compile fine with C++ 7.0.
-phil
Bill Hofmann
>As far as I know, the TCL will not be included. However, the TCL has
>changed a lot, and we would probably have to send out new manuals,
>plus the new visual tool, etc., if you were really going to get a lot
>of use out of it. The TCL now uses templates, MI, is OSA scriptable
>and recordable, and has a number of other code reorganizations.
> -phil
One of the appealing features of PowerPlant is that I don't have to use
it to create **applications**: I can use it to build cdevs and presumably
other non-app interface elements. Will TCL 2.0 let me do this? Will
you provide a little sample code?
--
-Bill Hofmann w...@netcom.COM
Fresh Software and Instructional Design +1 510 524 0852
Adam Hedworth Slim
>>
>>When you consider that ALL that $150 is going into Symantec's
>>pocket, it's even more outrageous. I would venture that they
>>make more money from an upgrade order than they do selling new
>>copies, which has several middlemen (distributors, retailers)
>>in the process.
>
>Given statements such as this, one could reasonably conclude that you
>have little to now understanding of how the software business works.
>
I think that Paul's point was that someone who purchases first release
versions have to keep paying more and more to have an up-to-date version
while a new user could walk into a software store and purchase the
new version for a fraction of the cost. Microsoft is a terror for this
and Symantec is not that far behind.
I realize the new ver 7 has stuff that was never in the 6.0X, but $150??
I bought my 6.0 at $130 (educational). I expect the complete 7 will go for
about the same. Why pay $300 for being loyal when a new user will pay
half that.
Adam Slim
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
w6e...@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca "Cognito, ergo, spam" -- I'm pink, therefore
Adam Slim I'm spam.
People never read these things anyway.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr_G._Landweber_student_tel_2-73550
I realize the new ver 7 has stuff that was never in the 6.0X, but $150??
I bought my 6.0 at $130 (educational). I expect the complete 7 will go for
about the same. Why pay $300 for being loyal when a new user will pay
half that.
The difference between you and a new user is that you have been able
to use it for the past year or two. Upgrade fees make more sense when
you think of software as a subscription. That way, the software
companies generate revenue from the entire installed base, as opposed
to from the expansion of that base. Unfortunately, Symantec does not
seem to be in touch with what its user base wants (i.e., bug fixes as
opposed to major new features).
-- Greg "Browser" Landweber
g...@maths.ox.ac.uk
Pete Gontier
>I think that Paul's point was that someone who purchases first release
>versions have to keep paying more and more to have an up-to-date
>version while a new user could walk into a software store and purchase
>the new version for a fraction of the cost. Microsoft is a terror for
>this and Symantec is not that far behind.
I would say MacUser and Macworld are the terrors who propagate this
fallacious thinking. They have run stories comparing the cost to upgrade
from 1.0 to X.0 and the cost to purchase X.0. These articles almost
invariably miss the fact that the time it takes for a company to produce
all those upgrades was also time during which the customer had full use
of each successive version of the product. The purchaser of X.0 has
likely missed out on years of use.
--
Pete Gontier, CTO, Integer Poet Software; gur...@netcom.com
Rich Siegel
>In article <siegelCM...@netcom.com> sie...@netcom.com (Rich Siegel) writes:
>>In article <2lnu1l$d...@golden.kaleida.com> Paul Ferguson <pfer...@kaleida.com> writes:
>>>
>>>When you consider that ALL that $150 is going into Symantec's
>>>pocket, it's even more outrageous. I would venture that they
>>>make more money from an upgrade order than they do selling new
>>>copies, which has several middlemen (distributors, retailers)
>>>in the process.
>>
>>Given statements such as this, one could reasonably conclude that you
>>have little to now understanding of how the software business works.
>>
>
>
>I think that Paul's point was that someone who purchases first release
>versions have to keep paying more and more to have an up-to-date version
>while a new user could walk into a software store and purchase the
>new version for a fraction of the cost. Microsoft is a terror for this
>and Symantec is not that far behind.
>
>I realize the new ver 7 has stuff that was never in the 6.0X, but $150??
>I bought my 6.0 at $130 (educational). I expect the complete 7 will go for
>about the same. Why pay $300 for being loyal when a new user will pay
>half that.
Educational pricing is not a proper yardstick by which to measure a
company's pricing policies. [In fact, the complaining of educational
purchasers when a new upgrade comes out appears to be another constant
in the universe.]
In the real (i.e. "outside") world, the suggested retail price of the
product is considerably higher than the upgrade price, and so it is
much to the advantage of current owners to upgrade, rather than to
purchase a new copy.
In an educational setting, if it costs you as much to buy a new copy
as it does to upgrade, why not sell your old copy and use the proceeds
to subsidize your purchase of a new copy?
Marianne Lee
>In an educational setting, if it costs you as much to buy a new copy
>as it does to upgrade, why not sell your old copy and use the proceeds
>to subsidize your purchase of a new copy?
Damn good idea!!! Anybody want to buy my copy of Symantec C++ 6.0 for $100?
I'll pay shipping and even include a floppy with the 6.0.1 upgrade.
John Nagle
>In article <2ltj71...@bowen.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca> w6e...@rick.cs.ubc.ca (Adam Hedworth Slim) writes:
> I realize the new ver 7 has stuff that was never in the 6.0X, but $150??
> I bought my 6.0 at $130 (educational). I expect the complete 7 will go for
> about the same. Why pay $300 for being loyal when a new user will pay
> half that.
Actually, I'd be willing to pay full price for the 7.0 upgrade, but
I don't want to buy a new Symantec product until I hear some data on how
well it works. I just want a bug fix to 6.0.1 for now. I don't want to
pay to be a beta tester for new Symantec code. Life is too short for
that.
John Nagle
gregory fennell
many back-and-forth arguments going on about the original 6.0 version. As a
student, I bought 6.0 at a good price, but now I feel like I lost out on the
deal if the original compiler is flawed. Will a free upgrade solve all the
bugs or just the compiler bugs?
Also, I haven't gotten to use 6.0 much yet, but are the compiler bugs
people mention pertain only to C++ compiling or to THINK C compiling as well?
I will mostly be compiling reg. C code here at school for the next year.
How do you all feel about the C compiler included with SC++ 6.0? Thanks a
bunch for your insight/experience.
-Greg Fennell gfen...@bach.helios.nd.edu
Runner, CPEG, sleeper (not nec. in that order)
M. Scott Smith
Greg,
When do you find time to sleep? :) Anyway..
The C compiler that comes with SC++ 6.0 is the same Think C compiler that
has been around for years, first as Lightspeed C and then as Think C under
Symantec. That compiler has passed the test of time; it's pretty much
bug-free and produces good code.
The C++ compiler (a totally separate compiler) started out as Zortech
C++, a compiler originally written for the PC and ported to the Mac. That
compiler was bought by Symantec and spruced up a *bit* before it was released
in v6.0. While the compiler is certainly usable (I've been developing a
30,000+ line program with it with no major problems yet), it's the one
that's been "plagued" by bugs. Many of those bugs were fixed in v6.0.1.
Even more will be fixed in v7.0. Symantec will give you a free compiler
upgrade from v6.0 to v7.0.
If you'll only be programming in C, you've got the best Mac compiler on
the market (IMO). If you move up to C++, the v7.0 compiler (which you'll
get for free) will most likely be a very good C++ compiler. Even now,
unless you get into "deeper" C++ areas (such as multiple inheritance or
templates) you probably won't see the results of any bugs. I occasionally
get "ZRef errors -- remove objects" which requires deleting a project file
and creating a new one, re-adding all source, which is particularly
annoying since I've got 40+ source files. (I think this is a Think Project
Manager problem, not a compiler problem.) But I don't use multiple
inheritance so I really haven't been affected by other bugs (that I know
of!)
Joe Francis
> In an educational setting, if it costs you as much to buy a new copy
> as it does to upgrade, why not sell your old copy and use the proceeds
> to subsidize your purchase of a new copy?
I thought that was supposed to be *bad*. Don't the educational price
deals come with some agreement restricting resale? I'm pretty sure
its that way here at Dartmouth with hardware (which I've never understood
since it's been years since the "educational" hardware prices from Apple
represented an actual discount), and I thought something similar was
true for software. Heck, if I'm allowed to sell this stuff, someone make
me offer for THINK C 5.0! :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Clams on the halfshell, and Rollerskates. Rollerskates."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Andrews
]
]I hope that the distinction between TCL 1.1.3 -> TCL 2.0 vs. C++ 6.0.2
^^^^^^^^^^
Is there a SC++ 6.0.2?
---
Doug Knowles
mil...@govonca.gov.on.ca writes:
>So....
>Will the package that upgrades the 6.0.x C++ compiler include a class
>library that can be used and built upon using the various C++ features
>that you've listed above?
Phil,
We're working to do the best we can for 6.0.x users. It's an exercise
in trying to find the right place to draw the line between appropriate
updates to 6.0.x, and giving away too much work for which one would
reasonably expect to pay.
I can't say right now how this is going to turn out; all we can do is
wait until we announce the patch.
------------
Doug Knowles All opinions strictly my own.
Language Products Group Nobody else wants 'em.
Symantec Corporation
Internet: do...@bedford.symantec.com
joe gregor
>to v7.0. This won't give you some of the new "features" (such as an
>improved TPM, TCL 2.0, etc.)
Someone asked a very important question that may get lost in the noise.
Will the class library we got with 6.0 work with the 7.0 bug fix/upgrade
offered by Symantec. If not, the offer is worthless....
> If you all keep ranting and raving about Symantec, you might very well
>encourage _management_ at Symantec to ditch all efforts in the area of
>compiler development.
Or you may convince them to work harder to do better....Who knows.
________________________________________________________________________________
Joseph Gregor |
gre...@ccf.nrl.navy.mil | THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
t...@eng.umd.edu |
________________________________|_______________________________________________
joe gregor
Jerry....@ucop.edu (Jerry Wilcox) wrote:
>In article <2lnu1l$d...@golden.kaleida.com>, Paul Ferguson
><pfer...@kaleida.com> wrote:
>> When you consider that ALL that $150 is going into Symantec's
>> pocket, it's even more outrageous. I would venture that they
>> make more money from an upgrade order than they do selling new
>> copies, which has several middlemen (distributors, retailers)
>> in the process.
>>
>Gee, Mr. Ferguson. Could you please tell me where Symantec got:
>
>1) The programmers to work for free on producing the upgrade and the new
> components that are being shipped with the upgrade, not to mention the
> free facilities, computers, and tools that they used to do the work?
>
>2) The free packaging, floppy disks, printing (assuming that the upgrade
> *will* come with documentation?
>
>3) The free mailing of upgrade notices?
>
>4) The free services of an order fulfillment service?
>
>5) The free shipping of upgrade orders?
>
>and about a million other things I have forgotten/didn't bother to list?
>
the first sale copies sold through distributors...PLUS the dealer markup. So,
unless dealer markup is small enough to be on the order of the costs for
mailing out postcards and shipping individual boxes the original poster had
a semi-valid point.
Phil Shapiro
>One of the appealing features of PowerPlant is that I don't have to use
>it to create **applications**: I can use it to build cdevs and presumably
>other non-app interface elements. Will TCL 2.0 let me do this?
TCL 2.0 is still intended only for developing applications. Besides
cdevs and DAs, what other types of non-app UI code would you like to
work on?
-phil
Charles Wiltgen
> The $149 upgrade buys the Visual Architect interface builder/program
> generator, a run-time object inspector which is a huge benefit in
> debugging (I can say this; I didn't work on it ;-)), TCL 2.0, which
> updates the TCL to "real" C++ objects (using MI, constructors &
> destructors, and templates) and adds functional improvements (object
> I/O support, AppleEvent support) with good compatibility with TCL
> 1.1.3.
>
> It's Symantec's position that 6.0.x users are entitled to the compiler
> improvements, and the patch will be available when (or before) 7.0 is
> available.
C'mon, it looks like a large portion of the people that were there for 6.0
would rather go to MetroWerks than spend $149 for 7.0 (more if you want to
do PPC stuff). I'm a hobbyist programmer, and for that price I'm gonna
bail on Symantec as well -- maybe you should pass some of these messages up
the pipeline.
My suggestion? Offer 7.0 upgrades for $25 to all 6.0 buyers. Maybe
they'll be believers again. Right now you're not selling a development
environment, you're selling your credibility.
--
Charles Wiltgen
cwil...@mcs.net
Anton Rang
>C'mon, it looks like a large portion of the people that were there for 6.0
>would rather go to MetroWerks than spend $149 for 7.0 (more if you want to
>
>My suggestion? Offer 7.0 upgrades for $25 to all 6.0 buyers. Maybe
>they'll be believers again.
I'd second that. Maybe upgrades to a version of 7.0 without the
fancy new Visual Architect. Maybe there should be three upgrades, to
7.0, (7.0 + TCL 2.x), or (7.0 + TCL 2.x + VA), at different prices.
I can't really justify spending $250 per copy (or will an upgrade to
the PPC version be less than the $149 + $99?) on upgrading compilers,
when most of the changes wouldn't be useful to us -- we don't use the
class library, all we really want is PPC code generation and bug
fixes. If Metrowerks goes final before the release of Symantec's 7.0
for the PPC, this becomes almost a no-brainer.
--
Anton Rang (ra...@winternet.mpls.mn.us)
Michael Krigsman
: > should make money off of it, but common... can anyone tell me that
: > upgrading from 4.0 -> 5.0 is really worth $100.00. I think not. To
: > date if I had bought every upgrade from 4.0 to the upcomming 7.0++ I'd
: > have spent around $500.00 and would have felt extremely cheated.
: This is a business Joseph, not everything is free. Develop tools by and
: large for the Mac are inexpensive when you consider the size of the user
: base. As a professional developer a $150 update is nothing when I can
: create software with it, especially if it saves you time like 7.0 with
: Visual Architect will.
I certainly agree with this voice of reason. Serious users of any
software tool often find that the real investment can be determined by
the time they spend with the product, not by the actual dollar cost of
the product. If an update saves you time and helps you complete your work
efficiently and well, then that update is worth buying.
hacke
indicated that it was introduced on March 7. Does anybody
know when we can expect to see it on our supermarket
shelf - available for purchase?
Peter
joe gregor
ra...@winternet.mpls.mn.us (Anton Rang) wrote:
>In article <cwiltgen-1...@cwiltgen.pr.mcs.net> cwil...@mcs.net
(Charles Wiltgen) writes:
>>C'mon, it looks like a large portion of the people that were there for 6.0
>>would rather go to MetroWerks than spend $149 for 7.0 (more if you want to
>>do PPC stuff). [ ... ]
>>
>>My suggestion? Offer 7.0 upgrades for $25 to all 6.0 buyers. Maybe
>>they'll be believers again.
>
I think $25.00 is a bit cheap, but $50 to $75 is entirely reasonable. I
upgraded to 6.0 a few months back because I:
a) wanted to keep up to date
b) hoped the 'ZREF error - please remove objects' bug would go away
c) new I was going to learn C++ in the future and figured this would
be the best game in town.
I am just now finding the time to start my C++ education and I find that
I have a compiler that *may* be so buggy I can't use it as a learning tool. Is
it my bug or the compilers? I don't know enough yet to answer that question.
I if I learn workarounds thinking that is how the language is *supposed* to
work, will I have trouble in the future?
Now we have another $150.00 update to a compiler I haven't even learned
how to use yet! Note that I can't justify the total $300.00 cost by saying
that I had the use of a compiler for X number of months. I know, stupid me
for buying it before needing it, but I assumed these upgrade offers had time
limits so I sent in my money. I did not know if the offer would still stand
if I didn't, and I didn't know if I could jump over an upgrade to go from 5.0
to 7.0 or 8.0 or whatever. I tried calling Symantec a few times to answer
these questions but I never could get to a human.
That's the story of one user. It may not count for a hill of beans but
Symantec says they are listening, so I though I would give them some feedback
without the flames.
-- Joe
Pete Gontier
>Idiotic flaming aside, I would say a majority of these expenses
>exist with the first sale copies sold through distributors...PLUS
>the dealer markup. So, unless dealer markup is small enough to be
>on the order of the costs for mailing out postcards and shipping
>individual boxes the original poster had a semi-valid point.
No, he didn't. The original poster imagined that the upgrade cost
has something to do with the cost of boxes and printing and diskette
duplication. In fact, what it has to do with is paying engineers
and, sadly, managers. If you've ever actually worked for a software
publisher, you know this. At one company I worked for, for years we
shipped a $50 product with about $3.25 worth of physical materials,
including the box, the manual, and the diskette. Undoubtedly some
programmers, despite their profession, will be outraged by this
notion, because they don't understand how intellectual property works.
These same people will probably oppose distribution of software via
the Infobahn because the software will not arrive on their machine
accompanied by dead trees and refined petroleum products.
Pete Gontier
Phil Shapiro
rb...@cas.org writes:
>]I hope that the distinction between TCL 1.1.3 -> TCL 2.0 vs. C++ 6.0.2
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Is there a SC++ 6.0.2?
Nope, must have been a freudian slip... Sorry for the confusion.
-phil
Michael A. Walker
ha...@itakura.nuee.nagoya-u.ac.jp (hacke) wrote:
The distributor for NYU's book store said that they will be shipping by the
end
of this month. However, I may just go ahead and order it directly from
Symantec. They can ship overnight.
--
Michael A. Walker
New York University
wal...@acf2.nyu.edu
==============================================------------------------8-;
main() {int x,y,k;char *b=" .:,;!/>)|&IH%*#@";double
cr,ci,zr,zi,temp,cx,cy;
for(y=30;puts(""),cy=y*0.1-1.5,y-->=0;){for(x=0;cx=x*0.04-2,zr=0,zi=0,x++<75;)
{for(cr=cx,ci=cy,k=0;temp=zr*zr-zi*zi+cr,zi=2*zr*zi+ci,zr=temp,k<112;k++)
if(zr*zr+zi*zi>10)break;printf("%c",b[k%16]);}}} /* try this on for
size!! */
Pferguson
writes:
> No, he didn't. The original poster imagined that the upgrade cost
> has something to do with the cost of boxes and printing and diskette
> duplication. In fact, what it has to do with is paying engineers
> and, sadly, managers. If you've ever actually worked for a software
> publisher, you know this. At one company I worked for, for years we
> shipped a $50 product with about $3.25 worth of physical materials,
> including the box, the manual, and the diskette. Undoubtedly some
> programmers, despite their profession, will be outraged by this
> notion, because they don't understand how intellectual property works.
Wrong. I "imagined" no such thing. I've worked for software companies
(including language companies) for many years, and fully understand
issues like intellectual property and paying for upper management's
Mercedes.
The point I was making was that Symantec chooses to distribute updates
through direct sales, rather than through retail channels as many
companies do today. I have no problem with that, in fact I prefer
it because in theory the cost to the consumer should be lower
without all the middlemen (distributors, retailers, etc.)
I don't see that in this case, based on: (1) the price of the product
to a new buyer, and (2) what updates to other similarly priced software
packages go for (through retail or direct channels).
Under other circumstances, this alone wouldn't be cause enough for
me to flame on this subject. However, less than a year ago, customers
went through a similar cycle (and many, like myself, paid $150) to
receive a less than complete product, have waited all this time with
only one partial bug fix, and are now presented with the reason more
complete, timely fixes weren't forthcoming: 7.0.
Given all this, do I think $150 is too high for this update? You're
damned right!
--fergy
Matt Mora
>Given all this, do I think $150 is too high for this update? You're
>damned right!
Add the previous $150 to upgrade from 5 to 6 and the total cost is $300.00
to get a usable compiler.
Xavier
--
___________________________________________________________
Matthew Xavier Mora Matt...@sri.com
SRI International mxm...@unix.sri.com
333 Ravenswood Ave Menlo Park, CA. 94025
Pete Gontier
>In article <gurgleCM...@netcom.com> Pete Gontier, gur...@netcom.com
>writes:
>> No, he didn't. The original poster imagined that the upgrade cost
>> has something to do with the cost of boxes and printing and diskette
>> duplication.
>Wrong. I "imagined" no such thing.
OK, then you were that OTHER original poster OVER THERE. :-)
>The point I was making was that Symantec chooses to distribute updates
>through direct sales, rather than through retail channels as many
>companies do today. I have no problem with that, in fact I prefer it
>because in theory the cost to the consumer should be lower without
>all the middlemen (distributors, retailers, etc.) I don't see that in
>this case, based on: (1) the price of the product to a new buyer, and
>(2) what updates to other similarly priced software packages go for
>(through retail or direct channels).
OK, but I still don't get it. You and I don't have any special insight
into the way Symantec has set pricing on C++ 7. It may be that they are
choosing to tone down the media blitz, so that money they would have
spent on advertising to potential new buyers is not reflected in the
price of a new copy, so that the update price is reasonably close to the
cost of producing the update, and the MSRP for a new copy is not much
higher. Who knows what they are doing? Nobody but them. I just don't
think you can compare numbers without any further context and conclude
that Symantec is doing something undesirable. They probably aren't so
stupid that they think they can gouge a market that's already pissed off
at them. So let's assume they're sane for a moment. Don't you think it's
possible they thought they needed to charge that much, given whatever
expenses they have, in order to have a high enough profit margin to
please the stockholders? They could be gouging, too, but why start
with that assumption?
>Under other circumstances, this alone wouldn't be cause enough for me
>to flame on this subject. However, less than a year ago, customers went
>through a similar cycle (and many, like myself, paid $150) to receive
>a less than complete product, have waited all this time with only one
>partial bug fix, and are now presented with the reason more complete,
>timely fixes weren't forthcoming: 7.0.
Well, that pisses me off too, but it's a different topic, innit?
MarkS77
they are now taking orders for 7.0. Ship date is expected to be March 28th, and
I'm told I can expect to receive my copy a week to ten days later.
Mark
JO...@olis.lib.ox.ac.uk
yt...@acs.bu.edu (Yan Tony Lee) writes:
>In article <siegelCM...@netcom.com>, sie...@netcom.com (Rich Siegel)
>wrote:
>
[Snip]
>If those complainers represent a large part of your business, Symantec is
>in big trouble. I have never seen a company flamed so incensively as I
>have seen on this newsgroup. C++ 6.0 received mixed reviews from what I
>have read. If The reviews for 7.0 are not favorable, Symantec might as
>well kiss its ass goodbye and bow down to victory to Metroworks.
Have your read any of the Windows groups? All of the major compiler
vendors (MS, Borland, Symantec) also get flamed there too. I think
the following rule applies:
More productive software ->
More complicated software ->
More bugs and long delays for releases
>
>How is Metroworks like? I have never tried it before.
>--
>BLAHBLAHBLAH Hedgehog
>Tony
>y-t...@acs.bu.edu
Phil Mills
>In article <1994Mar11.2...@govonca.gov.on.ca> Phil Mills,
>mil...@govonca.gov.on.ca writes:
>>So....
>>Will the package that upgrades the 6.0.x C++ compiler include a class
>>library that can be used and built upon using the various C++ features
>>that you've listed above?
>It's an exercise
>in trying to find the right place to draw the line between appropriate
>updates to 6.0.x, and giving away too much work for which one would
>reasonably expect to pay.
Just for the record I'd like to repeat a point from my original message;
I hope you'll pass it on to whoever makes these decisions:
A C++ compiler without a usable class library (or *with* a mostly
crippled one) is an interesting academic exercise rather than a
real-world development tool.
I suggest that it's less a case of "giving away too much work for which
one would reasonably expect to pay" and more a case of providing the
product that one reasonably expected they were paying for in the first
place.
Aleck Che-Mponda
writes:
>Add the previous $150 to upgrade from 5 to 6 and the total cost is
$300.00
>to get a usable compiler.
>
>Xavier
is equal to the cost of Code Warrior Gold!
For $99 or less for the complete 7.0 upgrade + PPC version I would be
willing
to upgrade the 6 copies we have in our group. As it stands now, we will
not
upgrade to the 7.0 - PPC version but have instead decided to get the free
C++ compiler update and purchase a copy of Code Warrior Gold. May the
better
compiler win!
Does anyone know if the Symantec 7.0 - PPC version will appear on some
future E.T.O. edition?
Che!
_______ _______
- Aleck H. Che-Mponda Internet: a...@raster.Kodak.COM -
- Dept. 845, 35807, 2-9-EP Uucp : sisd!ahc -
- Eastman Kodak Company Voice : +1 716 7269971 -
- Rochester, NY 14653-5807 Evening : +1 716 4750543 -
"In the interest of cost containment, the light at the end of the
tunnel has been turned off", ? ? ?
Rich Siegel
> A C++ compiler without a usable class library (or *with* a mostly
>crippled one) is an interesting academic exercise rather than a
>real-world development tool.
I, and I suspect others, disagree. Before class libraries became the
fad of the week, -everyone- wrote plain C or Pascal code, and it was a
long time before any Mac class libraries were available for C++
compilers (e.g. MacApp, the modern TCL, and PowerPlant). Most of the
Mac software out there these days was created without the benefit of a
"usable" class library.
R.
--
Rich Siegel % sie...@netcom.com % Principal, Bare Bones Software
--> For information about BBEdit, finger bbe...@world.std.com <--
"...yeah, I inhaled, and then I drank the bong water. So what're
you gonna do about it?" - Dennis Miller, on Bill Clinton
Doug Knowles
pfer...@aol.com writes:
>Under other circumstances, this alone wouldn't be cause enough for
>me to flame on this subject. However, less than a year ago, customers
>went through a similar cycle (and many, like myself, paid $150) to
>receive a less than complete product, have waited all this time with
>only one partial bug fix, and are now presented with the reason more
>complete, timely fixes weren't forthcoming: 7.0.
Actually, there are few (if any) resources that were expended on
non-compiler features in 7.0 that could have been shifted to the
compiler. Cutting a new compiler release is effected by coordination
with the groups with whom we share compiler code, the QA effort,
development cycles diverted to pre-release stabilization, etc.
You're entitled to be unhappy about the timeliness of the compiler
updates (and we are not dismissing the complaints), but it's not
quite accurate to suggest that the compiler work suffered because
of priority given to new environment features.
Jon Wätte
> Someone asked a very important question that may get lost in the noise.
>Will the class library we got with 6.0 work with the 7.0 bug fix/upgrade
>offered by Symantec. If not, the offer is worthless....
At least their QA department acted as if that was a key goal
when I was sending in reports. As to whether all of 'em got
fixed or not, the final version will tell...
--
-- Jon W{tte, h...@nada.kth.se, Mac Hacker Deluxe --
Technology is not the problem; therefore, abondoning technology
is not the answer.
Phil Mills
>In article <1994Mar17....@govonca.gov.on.ca> mil...@govonca.gov.on.ca (Phil Mills) writes:
>> A C++ compiler without a usable class library (or *with* a mostly
>>crippled one) is an interesting academic exercise rather than a
>>real-world development tool.
>Before class libraries became the
>fad of the week, -everyone- wrote plain C or Pascal code,
Yep, me too. And before I had a computer, I used a typewriter...so
what.
If you only use C++ as a better C, then there's no problem. If, on the
other hand, you buy into the OO concept of productivity through re-use
and all that jazz, then a decent foundation is an absolute must. What
possible benefit is there in paying for a set of base classes that you
can't use the way the language expects and that you can't build on?
>Most of the
>Mac software out there these days was created without the benefit of a
>"usable" class library.
Fine...suffering is good for the soul. But I guess I'm convinced that
the future of software development isn't going to be just more of the
same. Development notes talk about the PPC (and other high-end chips')
promise of enabling a whole bunch of wonderful new end-user features.
Great, but I'm just about saturated with all the details necessary to
write code from scratch for the current toolbox managers. I'm betting
that OOP is a better solution than cut-and-paste.
And for that bet to pay off, I need the suppliers of software
development products to give me more than a caveat-ridden set of
routines in return for my money.
joh...@hkucc.hku.hk
> In article <2m87tf$8...@unix.sri.com> Matt Mora, mxm...@unix.sri.com
> writes:
>>Add the previous $150 to upgrade from 5 to 6 and the total cost is
> $300.00
>>to get a usable compiler.
>>
set the upgrade price too high. Maybe if a few more people indicated that
their decision would be different at $99 from $149, they may be persuaded to
make the *right* decision :) I think that this would work better than trying
to add odd bits into the free part.
John Bacon-Shone
joh...@hkucc.hku.hk
Russ Gold
So....
Will the package that upgrades the 6.0.x C++ compiler include a class
library that can be used and built upon using the various C++ features
that you've listed above?
In <2m28d...@grumpy.symantec.com> Doug Knowles
<do...@bedford.symantec.com> responded:
It's an exercise
in trying to find the right place to draw the line between appropriate
updates to 6.0.x, and giving away too much work for which one would
reasonably expect to pay.
In <1994Mar17....@govonca.gov.on.ca>, mil...@govonca.gov.on.ca
(Phil Mills) commented:
Just for the record I'd like to repeat a point from my original message;
I hope you'll pass it on to whoever makes these decisions:
A C++ compiler without a usable class library (or *with* a mostly
crippled one) is an interesting academic exercise rather than a
real-world development tool.
I suggest that it's less a case of "giving away too much work for which
one would reasonably expect to pay" and more a case of providing the
product that one reasonably expected they were paying for in the first
place.
I strongly agree with this point. My first experience with using C++
involved using Borland's C++ on a DOS / Windows box in 1992. When
Symantec (finally) announced their own C++ compiler, I bought it,
eagerly expecting at least what I had seen in the older Borland
product - at least in terms of a class library. I was very surprised
to see that the "C with objects" library was all that was
provided. While I can well understand Symantec's need to make money
from its work, and would not expect the 7.0 upgrade to be free (or all
but), I think it would not be unreasonable for Symantec to provide 6.0
purchasers with the product we thought we were originally buying -
that would include not only the compiler fixes, but also a true C++
class library - even if it does not include such niceties as the
Bedrock exception handler and memory manager.
The other new features advertised for 7.0 would probably justify the
upgrade cost for those who want to do better (including possibly me),
and would have to buy a CD-ROM to switch to CodeWarrior.
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Russ Gold | phone: (610) 591-4220 |
| Boeing Helicopters IMS | email: go...@pgate.he.boeing.com |
| P.O. Box 16858 +-----------------------------------------+
| Philadelphia, PA 19142 | "My opinions are my own!" he declaimed. |
| M/S P28-24 | er, ... DISclaimed ;) |
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
Homayoon Akhiani
|>I get the impression that Symantec are seriously considering whether they have
|>set the upgrade price too high. Maybe if a few more people indicated that
|>their decision would be different at $99 from $149, they may be persuaded to
NO, not a penny more till I see my 6.0 works according to the manuals (and not
the bug list)
Then I will pay for the new stuff, (i.e. Visual Arch. etc.)
I own Think C, Think Ref., Norton stuff.(all from symantec)
I ignored the upgrades to 6.0 till they acctually called me, I guess it is much
harder to say no on the phone than just ignore the flyers.
I feel real bad about paying for upgrade to 6.0 and now (six months later)
they want more money! and probably fall '94 they ask fro more money to get the
PowerPC vesrion.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homayoon Akhiani "Turning Ideas into ... Reality"
Digital Equipment Corporation
77 Reed Rd. Hudson, MA 01701 "All Rights Reserved. Copyright(c)1994"
Email: akh...@ricks.enet.dec.com "The words are mine, and not my employer"
Scott Gruby
veirs) wrote:
> I held my nose and ordered the upgrade from 6.0 to 7.0 and, you know
> what?, they sent me THINK C 6.0. Wow. I bought that last fall. Why
> would they still be shipping 6.0 to ANYONE (including someone who already
> bought it)?
>
> val veirs
> phsics department
> colorado college
SC++ 7.0 isn't going to be available for awhile. I am very surprised that
they don't tell you that. When I called and inquired, they said that it was
just an announcement, but they didn't know when it would be shipping.
--
Scott Allen Gruby (Scott...@hmc.edu)
Macintosh Student System Manager
Academic Computing, Harvey Mudd College
Claremont, CA
Finger ripem_...@eagle.st.hmc.edu for public key
Gordon Watts
(Scott Gruby) wrote:
> In article <2n2ukj$3...@lace.Colorado.EDU>, v...@proxima.cc.colorado.edu (val
> veirs) wrote:
>
> > I held my nose and ordered the upgrade from 6.0 to 7.0 and, you know
> > what?, they sent me THINK C 6.0. Wow. I bought that last fall. Why
> > would they still be shipping 6.0 to ANYONE (including someone who already
> > bought it)?
> >
> > val veirs
> > phsics department
> > colorado college
I just got the upgrade flyer in the mail. I didn't upgrade to think c 6.0,
so they sent me something that sais I can get Think C 7.0 for 199 (an
another 100 bucks will get me up to a Power PC code generator). Gee,
wonder where they got that pricing structure? :-)
I looked at the flyer fairly carefully. As far as I can tell, it "sais"
I'll get 7.0 as soon as I return the flyer. I thought that perhaps 7.0 was
out and I had missed the posting. Hmmm...guess it was another case of
misleading advertising (or, at least, perhaps I missread the flyer).
Perhaps this is one for the backpage of a Consuper Reports mag? :-)
Cheers,
Gordon.
--
Gordon Watts -- gwa...@fnal.fnal.gov
Scott Gruby
(Gordon Watts) wrote:
> I just got the upgrade flyer in the mail. I didn't upgrade to think c 6.0,
> so they sent me something that sais I can get Think C 7.0 for 199 (an
> another 100 bucks will get me up to a Power PC code generator). Gee,
> wonder where they got that pricing structure? :-)
>
> I looked at the flyer fairly carefully. As far as I can tell, it "sais"
> I'll get 7.0 as soon as I return the flyer. I thought that perhaps 7.0 was
> out and I had missed the posting. Hmmm...guess it was another case of
> misleading advertising (or, at least, perhaps I missread the flyer).
> Perhaps this is one for the backpage of a Consuper Reports mag? :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Gordon.
>
>
> --
> Gordon Watts -- gwa...@fnal.fnal.gov
I can't say that I have received any information on the upgrade yet, but
then again it might be that it got lost in the mail (I recently moved). I'm
really surprised that they are sending out upgrade notices for a product
that they don't expect to ship so a couple of months. If I get my upgrade
notice and it misleads me, I am definitely going to write a letter to the
president of Symantec letting him know my feelings.
I think that Symantec is going to have to dig itself out of this one. If
people like you didn't know that it wasn't available and upgrade, these
people will be pretty steamed.
Just my opinions...take them for what you think they're worth.
Rich Siegel
>In article <gwatts-27...@slip115.fnal.gov>, gwa...@fnal.fnal.gov
>(Gordon Watts) wrote:
>
>> I just got the upgrade flyer in the mail. I didn't upgrade to think c 6.0,
>> so they sent me something that sais I can get Think C 7.0 for 199 (an
>> another 100 bucks will get me up to a Power PC code generator). Gee,
>> wonder where they got that pricing structure? :-)
>>
>> I looked at the flyer fairly carefully. As far as I can tell, it "sais"
>> I'll get 7.0 as soon as I return the flyer. I thought that perhaps 7.0 was
>> out and I had missed the posting. Hmmm...guess it was another case of
>> misleading advertising (or, at least, perhaps I missread the flyer).
>> Perhaps this is one for the backpage of a Consuper Reports mag? :-)
>
>then again it might be that it got lost in the mail (I recently moved). I'm
>really surprised that they are sending out upgrade notices for a product
>that they don't expect to ship so a couple of months. If I get my upgrade
>notice and it misleads me, I am definitely going to write a letter to the
>president of Symantec letting him know my feelings.
Why do you assume it won't ship for a couple of months, or that they
don't expect so? Does it say this in the flyer, or is your conclusion
based on supposition and rumor?
Scott Gruby
wrote:
> Why do you assume it won't ship for a couple of months, or that they
> don't expect so? Does it say this in the flyer, or is your conclusion
> based on supposition and rumor?
>
> R.
> --
> Rich Siegel % sie...@netcom.com % Principal, Bare Bones Software
Ahh...I'm not making any assumptions here. When I called Symantec to check
on the upgrade (about 2 weeks ago), the lady I spoke with said that the
software wouldn't ship for a few months.
I hope this clarifies the course of my information.
Francis H. Schiffer 3rd
Symantec C/C++ version 7.0 upgrade for owners of Symantec C/C++ version 6.
When looking over the flier, I was astonished to note that the upgrade is a
"limitted time" offer. The price was the same as the announcement, $150,
but there was a time limitation. Interesting enough the text also stated
that this upgrade was a "special" offer, that was being made only to
registered users of version 6. I wonder what will happen to version 6
owners who do not upgrade at this time?
The flier did not indicate if the software is actually shipping at this
time and I did not bother to waste Symantec's nickel (and my time) to call
and ask.
skip
a registered Symantec C/C++ version 6.0.1 owner
--
Francis H Schiffer 3rd schi...@stsci.edu - my opinions only, those of
sk...@dispair.stsci.edu stscic::schiffer - my employer are unknown to me
Dan Crevier
From: Francis H. Schiffer 3rd, schi...@dispair.stsci.edu
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 14:46:05 GMT
In article <schiffer-2...@dispair.stsci.edu> Francis H. Schiffer
The flyer I got says "Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery."
It also says "The rock-solid compiler now generates code that's even more
highly optimized than before." Does that imply that 6.0 was rock-solid?
Dan
Kelsey Jordahl
> Why do you assume it won't ship for a couple of months, or that they
> don't expect so? Does it say this in the flyer, or is your conclusion
> based on supposition and rumor?
> ...
Ahh...I'm not making any assumptions here. When I called Symantec to check
on the upgrade (about 2 weeks ago), the lady I spoke with said that the
software wouldn't ship for a few months.
I hope this clarifies the course of my information.
As of today (Tues., 3/29), Symantec customer service says that SC++ 7.0
will be shipping in two weeks.
Kelsey Jordahl
kjor...@mit.edu
Scott Gruby
(Kelsey Jordahl) wrote:
> As of today (Tues., 3/29), Symantec customer service says that SC++ 7.0
> will be shipping in two weeks.
>
> Kelsey Jordahl
> kjor...@mit.edu
Interesting...as of yesterday (3/28) they said it would be shipping in 2 to
6 weeks.
Anyway...I ordered the upgrade and I guess this will encourage me to learn
some more C++ to use the visual architect.
(Please don't tell me SC++ is a bad product...it works well for me.)
mahboud
> In article <KELS.94Ma...@bullard.mit.edu>, ke...@bullard.mit.edu
> (Kelsey Jordahl) wrote:
>
> > As of today (Tues., 3/29), Symantec customer service says that SC++ 7.0
> > will be shipping in two weeks.
> >
> > Kelsey Jordahl
> > kjor...@mit.edu
>
> Interesting...as of yesterday (3/28) they said it would be shipping in 2 to
> 6 weeks.
>
> Anyway...I ordered the upgrade and I guess this will encourage me to learn
> some more C++ to use the visual architect.
>
I ordered today and they said to expect it in 7-10 days. They mentioned
something about shipping Federal Express.
Anyone know anything about the Cross Platform Development kit that is an
option to the 7.0 upgrade?
-mahboud
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mahboud Zabetian
mah...@aggroup.com
ag group, inc.
2540 camino diablo, suite 200
walnut creek, ca 94596
510-937-7900 voice
510-937-2479 fax
510-937-6704 ara
ftp.aggroup.com anonymous ftp
MarkS77
yesterday (3/28), and that I should expect to have it my hot little hands in
about 10 days. Sounds like they can't even get their stories straight...
Mark
Brad Andrews
]I called Symantec about a week ago, and they told me that 7.0 would ship
]yesterday (3/28), and that I should expect to have it my hot little hands in
]about 10 days. Sounds like they can't even get their stories straight...
]
]Mark
]
No, it sounds like the same conflict that can happen between any
marketing and development groups to me. :)
---
Brad Andrews
Brad.A...@cas.org
All opinions are strictly mine
Ben Hellstrom
offering an "upgrade" (read "bugfix") to 7.0 for *another* $150.
At this rate, I think I'll sit on my money until THINK C/C++ 10.0 comes
out in 1996.
..or maybe I'll try a competitor's C/C++.
Ben Hellstrom
hell...@access.digex.net
AFC JLloyd
Hellstrom) writes:
"I just upgraded to SC++ 6.0 6 months ago for $150. *Now* Symantec is
offering an "upgrade" (read "bugfix") to 7.0 for *another* $150.
At this rate, I think I'll sit on my money until THINK C/C++ 10.0 comes
out in 1996."
Ok, I'm a Symantec employee (though not in the Think group) so perhaps my brain
too has been "assimilated by the Borg", but I'd like to point out a couple
things about 7.0:
First, the bugs that made 6.0 and 6.0.1 unusable for many developers were in
the C++ translator. You can get the 7.0 translator for free and use it with
6.0.1 if you don't want to pay for the rest of the stuff in 7.0.
Secondly, 7.0 includes a major revision to the TCL, The Visual Architect (an
interface builder derived from Classy) and The Think Inspector (an object
inspector/debugger), and some nice improvements to the TPM. These are the
things that Symantec is asking you to shell out $150 for.
Jim Lloyd
afcj...@aol.com
AFC JLloyd
writes:
"First, the bugs that made 6.0 and 6.0.1 unusable for many developers were in
the C++ translator. You can get the 7.0 translator for free and use it with
6.0.1 if you don't want to pay for the rest of the stuff in 7.0."
"Secondly, 7.0 includes a major revision to the TCL, The Visual Architect (an
interface builder derived from Classy) and The Think Inspector (an object
inspector/debugger), and some nice improvements to the TPM. These are the
things that Symantec is asking you to shell out $150 for."
Let me correct myself. The updater that was made available today patches not
only the C++ translator, but also the C and Rez translators, the TPM, and the
Debugger, all to be equivalent to the shipping 7.0 versions.
Jim Lloyd
afcj...@aol.com
John Nagle
>Let me correct myself. The updater that was made available today patches not
>only the C++ translator, but also the C and Rez translators, the TPM, and the
>Debugger, all to be equivalent to the shipping 7.0 versions.
As of 1010 hrs PST 2 APR 94, the latest update on SUMEX-AIM was
"symantec-cpp-601-updt.hqx [25Sep93, 1350kb]". The latest update to
CodeWarrior-related update was 31 MAR 94, so SUMEX-AIM appears to be
keeping up with submissions.
So where is it "available"?
John Nagle
Erik C. Thauvin
I just got the 6.0.1->7.0 upgrade from the Symantec forum on AOL. It
shouldn't be too long until it shows up on sumex.
E.
--
Erik C. Thauvin | Raven Systems Ltd. | This is your conscience
rave...@eskimo.com | P.O. Box 560894 | speaking: please return
+1 (206) 747-9819 | Orlando, FL 32856-0894 | my watch.
Tony Mann
na...@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:
> So where is it [the patch] "available"?
On Compuserve, in Symantec's forum. It is probably on the Symantec BBS
also.
________________________________________________________________________
______
Tony Mann *Software Development for Mac/Windows/Newton*
to...@netcom.com
Phone: (408) 426-0846 CIS: 72260,1404 AppleLink: TONYM AOL:
TonyMann
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
cus...@wrc.wrgrace.com
Symantec call-in BBS +1 408 973-9598. Symantec openly supports Compuserve and
its own call-in BBS as 'official' channels.
It should be available by ftp (or gopher or whatever) at ics.uci.edu under
mac/think-c/compiler/symantec as soon as someone submits it or makes it
public there.
Me, I'm waiting until I can get it over Internet for free.
--
Linda Custer
<cus...@wrc.wrgrace.com>