MSC Danger (was Re: Turbo C vs Quick C)

[Barnacle Wes]

In article <2946 at dasys1.UUCP>, wfp at dasys1.UUCP (William Phillips) writes:
> In article <567 at naucse.UUCP>, wew at naucse.UUCP (Bill Wilson) writes:
> > Turbo C is superior to Quick C.

At filling my garbage can, yes.  I took a program that I wrote on Unix
(MicroPort System V/AT if it makes any difference to you) and ported
it to the Atari ST using Mark Williams C.  I kermitted over the data
file, the program ran fine - the same as Unix.  Then I ported the
program to MS-DOS using Turbo C.  I kermitted over the data file, the
output was meaningless garbage.  I #defined the debugging code to find
out what was happening to the data buffers (no Turbo Debugger, of
course).  The debugging code did not work the way it did under Unix
either.  I got mad and pitched TC into the garbage (from across the
room, accompanied by great noises).  I bought Quick C.  I compiled
the code without the debugging defines.  It ran just like Unix.
Hmmm...  If it runs on iAPX286 'pcc', MWC on the 68000, and on Quick
C on 286, what's wrong with Turbo?

> >                                  On our campus here we have also
> > had Quick C blow away hard drives, so be careful.
> 
> I know of a case where MSC (4.0 I think) utterly scrambled a hard drive

Yah, Microsoft said something about MSC 5.0 blowing away hard disks on
PCs and XTs using Western Digital WX2 series disk controllers.  I
guess Microsoft beta-testers don't stoop to using mere 8088's any
more....  (I can't blame them, I wouldn't either).

-- 
    /\              -  "Against Stupidity,  -    {backbones}!
   /\/\  .    /\    -  The Gods Themselves  -  utah-cs!utah-gr!
  /    \/ \/\/  \   -   Contend in Vain."   -  uplherc!sp7040!
 / U i n T e c h \  -       Schiller        -     obie!wes