Subj : Re: Opinion Question - is there a preference for the various versions? To : borland.public.cpp.borlandcpp From : D Kat Date : Tue Oct 05 2004 05:47 pm "Ed Mulroy [TeamB]" wrote in message news:4162ef88@newsgroups.borland.com... > Borland C++ 3.0 supported Windows 3.0 and its VCPI method of handling > memory above the 640K limit, a scheme which limits what is up there to > only one program. Windows 3.1 and above as well as DOS itself often only > mimic VCPI with difficulty. Borland C++ 3.1 and above use the DMPI method > of handling that memory as does DOS and all Windows versions from 3.1 up > along with most debuggers, some printer drivers and other things. There > is significant advantage to developing DOS applications under BC++ 3.1 > over using BC++ 3.0. As I recall, and I was deeply into this at the time, > the BC++ 3.1 DOS development facilities were, depending upon the item in > question, either equal to those in 3.0 or superior to them. If you have > problems developing for DOS using Borland C++ 3.0 the source of the > problem will stare back at you from the mirror when you are shaving. > > The facilities of Builder are facilities using the advantages of 32 bit > Windows. You cannot have them or get them under DOS. > > When I have a need to develop for DOS and am near a machine on which it is > installed, I use BC++ 5.02 to do it. If I have significant source to > type, then I use the IDE and debug via Tools|Turbo_Debugger, which fires > up the same debugging tool I use from the command line. > > . Ed I have two entirely different lines of development. One is a visual oriented Windows App. The other is entirely run in DOS doing real-time speech output on a D/A and real-time IO input from a button board. I actually used to get better quality sound production on my old DEC Unix OS machines then I do now on DOS. I now have the time to try to do things right and am trying to track down the root of problems that we have always just lived with (occasional clicks in the sound files, program freezing in an indeterminate manner, etc.) I had believed it to be the case that 3.0 was actually better for what I was doing but will now try the 3.1 (somewhere I have 3.2.... ). I'm very attached to the IDE interface on 3.0 and can't remember when things changed noticeably.... Anyway, I hope folks bear with me while I get back up to speed. > "D Kat" wrote in message > news:4162de5d$1@newsgroups.borland.com... >> Thank you. I have 5.02 and will take your recommendation. >> >> I debug DOS apps from windows using 3.0 - problem being very small DOS >> window and none of the printing capabilities I have with Builder (of >> course that is commenting out all the functions that use boards that are >> not used in Windows...). > > .