🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug4.231138.409@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_harbergt@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
> Since we have a Micro$oft representative monitoring this group, I
> was wondering how much could be revealed about VisualBASIC for DOS.
> The PCWeek article said it was out in Beta form with a commerical
> release by the "end of the year."
>
  First of all, I am not a "Micro$oft representative monitoring this
group".  I do this on my own time, and as a service to others who are
learning to use our Basic products.  My manager does not even know I
am replying occasionally to posts here.

  Secondly, I am unable to comment on unreleased products.  Visual Basic
for MSDOS (if there is such a product) is officially unannounced and
unreleased.  You did notice the "Beta" word in the article, no?

  Thirdly, I don't understand what the "$" is in your spelling of our
name.  Is this some kind of veiled insult?  Do you begrudge us for making
a profit?  You know, most companies are in business in order to make money.

> My interests and concerns are these:
>   1) Is it a replacement for QuickBASIC?  Is QB offically dead except
>      for that interpreter that comes with MS-DOS?
>   2) The article mentions a "Professional" version of VB for DOS; will
>      this supplant PDS?
>   3) Will VB_D be compatible?  I have a tidy investment in external
>      libraries for QB, the upgrade costs will kill me.
>   4) Will it be an "EXE hog" like QB or has Micro$oft done its homework
>      and copied Cresent's PDQ?
>

  Sorry, I can't comment on any of these questions.

> What really irks me, is the way Micro$oft has handled its QB users.  As
> released in 1988 QB 4.5 was a great product and I make no apologies to
> anyone when I mention that I learned to program with it.  QB had an
> evolutionary path that _could_ have kept up with Turbo Pascal.  Four
> years later, everyone that I learned QB with has moved on to TP, not
> because it is so superior but because it continued evolutionary growth!
>
> So along comes PDS 7.1 and VisualBASIC for Windows; PDS was too expensive
> for what you got and VB, well, it was for Windows (an extremly expensive
> avenue to follow).  So I wait... Lo and behold, along comes an offer to
> upgrade to PDS 7.1 for $99, but I smelled a rat and my instincts may be
> right with this announcement for VB_D.

*Soapbox mode on*

  Boy, have you got a chip on your shoulder, or what!!  Why the hostility?
You say that QB is great and you make no apologies to anyone about using it,
yet instead of thanking us for such a great product, you compare it to a
different product, from a different company, and even a different programming
language for gosh sakes.  You know, QB4.5 is probably not as good as a lot
of C development environments either.  SmallTalk, Fortran, and Assembler
have some really neat features too.  My 5.0 liter Ford Mustang has a lot of
killer options.  You know what?? that has *nothing* to do with QuickBasic.

  Have you called us to give us your suggestions?  Have you written letters
to tell us your concerns?  Or are you just carping in a public forum because
it's fun to bash Microsoft?  I'm not trying to provoke a flame war, but this 
type of unsubstantiated finger-pointing really gets to me.

*soapbox mode off*

>
> Money might come easy for Mr. Gates and Co., but I have to watch my dimes.
> All I wanted was granular libraries and pointer data types!
>

Hardly.  Money doesn't come easily to any company in this highly competitive
industry.  We do well because of outstanding products, world-class technical
support, and a genuine concern for what our customers want/need.  Given your
statements above, you must be rolling on the floor laughing right about now.
Nonetheless, this statement is quite true. 

I'll shut up now.
Phil Cooper