Date: Thu, 11 Mar 93 10:51:02 -0500
From: jshumate AT wrdis01 DOT robins DOT af DOT mil ( Shumate Jason;WR-ALC/DSMDC)
Subject: Microsoft
To: djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu

In your message of 11 Mar 1993 at 1004 EST, you write:
> Lastly, I would like to see the FSF add Microsoft to their list of
> "no-no-no" companies.  The recent comments on Visual C++ and the
> Microsoft support personnel combined with my own bitter experiences
> with their Pascal, FORTRAN Qbasic and C compilers compel me to write
> this.
> 
Just my 2 cents worth.  I was somewhat surprised that given Microsoft's 
recent attempt to copyright the name "Windows" that the FSF didn't complain,
but perhaps their position is only to boycott those who copyright interfaces
(ie. "look and feel") and not those who try to copyright words.  Microsoft
certainly has its problems.  Version 7.0 of Microsoft C/C++ supports AT&T
cfront 2.1, not 3.0 like Borland (I think G++ supports most of 3.0).  I read
in comp.lang.c that a commercial memory checking program found something
ridiculous like over 20 severe memory leaks in 7.0.  Version 7.0 supports
virtual memory, but it is very unreliable.  It's like they give you what
you want, but they do it in a real half-assed kind of way.  I will say this-
I don't know about your country, but here in the US, I have always found 
Microsoft's support people to be very helpful, among the best I have ever
had to deal with.  You get good support from Microsoft, but whether you like
their products or not is another issue.  I can't speak from experience here,
but I have read that several people think Borland's support is awful but
really like their products.  Looks like you can't get the best of both worlds
>from either.
> 
> Bye for now,
> Tony.
>
By the way, I have Microsoft C/C++ 7.0 at work.  I am sufficiently
unimpressed with Visual C++ that I don't plan on trying to get a copy.