🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <26410@netcom.COM>, by resnicks@netcom.COM (Steve Resnick):
> In article <ONEEL.91Feb28101940@heawk1.rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov> oneel@heawk1.rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Bruce Oneel ) writes:
>>Overall summary?  For $100 it is great.  I'm using a very underpowered
>>machine and it is usable.  Overall the documentation lacks a coherent
>>feel from the windows point of view though.  Most of the intro
>>material is for DOS, when you hit the windows material there is very
>>little hand holding.  The readme is quite important.  According to
>>borland on  CI$ the limitation on real mode windows apps comes from a
>>problem with the linker which was resolved but not QC'd properly
>>before shipment.  It works but isn't supported until they QC it enough
>>so that they are happy.  It looks a bit rushed in places but this is
>>really a combination of a 1.0 product and a 2.0 product.  The windows
>>part is 1.0 and the c++ is 2.0.
>>
> 
> Somewhere in the vast documentation, they recommend Charles Petzold's
> Windows progrmming book. I forget the title. The idea was that there is
> a *lot* of information needed to know about Windows, and Petzold is
> one of the experts. (I have his book on OS/2 PM programming and it's 
> excellent!)

Interesting to me that Borland won't document Windows SDK themselves.  Couldn't
get passed the Copyrights I guess.  I also received my upgrade recently, but
I happen to be relatively unimpressed.  BorlandC is now slower than it used
to be.  In addition, I was dumb enough to be sucked in by their "don't use
the Arcane SDK" propoganda.  Well, I'm still stuck with it!!!  Borland came
up with nothing better.  Not that I expected them too, I just expected to
see something else.  Remember, these are first impressions.  I just don't see
a rose in there.  Maybe a marigold, but not a rose.