--> Note:
Forwarded (from: CRAIG) by Craig Morrison using timEd.
Original was from Craig Morrison to ullom{at}ibm.net.

--> Note:
Reply to a message in OS2PROG.

PF> Subject: Borland wants your opinion on BCOS2!

PF> On CompuServe, Borland has opened a Marketing Feedback forum
PF> where Borland has requested feedback from OS/2 Programmers
PF> regarding thier OS/2 Compiler.

  An honest opinion will set the tone for this reply:

  To me this sounds more like someone on a trolling expedition than an
honest effort at trying to resolve current problems.

> As you give your feedback please keep in mind that our
> market for BC++ for OS/2 is smaller than our market for BC++
> for Windows. This means that it doesn't make good business
> sense to put an equal amount of resources on both products,
> so any ideas you may have about "how to get more for less"
> are welcome.

Borland:  "Have we led you on enough yet? Are you *really* buying all
this?"
Lemming:  "Oh, yes, please tell me more about Windows. OS/2 isn't going
           anywhere."

  And this attitude is good business sense? Do you really want developers to
*buy and use* BC++ for OS/2? Pardon me for sounding harsh, but this is a
ludicrous position to forward for a company who is really wanting feedback
on their product.

> 1.  How well does BC++ 2.0 for OS/2 meet your OS/2 developement needs?

  I haven't upgraded from BC++ 1.0 because of negative feedback from others
about a lack of concern from you about fixing current problems before
moving on.

  I don't use your run-time library at all and have written replacements
for them so that I know the quality of the code being incorporated into my
projects. It may not be as fast as your code, but if it is broke, I can fix
it.

> Are there particular areas of the product which you like or dislike?

  The GUI IDE is an atrocious memory hog. Give us a text based IDE. Fix MAKE.

> 2.  Briefly describe any bugs in the tools or OWL you may
> have run  into and have been unable to work around.

  Again, this is a ludicrous position to take. Are you interested in making
the product better or not? A buggy product will NOT bring you more
business.

> 3.  What new features (SOM, Database support, etc.) are
> necessary for your development in the next 12 months?

  Direct-To-SOM.

> 5.  What platforms do you develop for? Please specify
> percent of effort on each.

  OS/2 100%

> 7.  Would it be valuable to you if BC++ for Windows targeted
> OS/2?

  No, I am an OS/2 programmer.

> 8.  Would it be valuable to you if BC++ for OS/2 targeted
> Windows?

  No, I am an OS/2 programmer.

  Do you see a pattern developing here?

 ===========================================================================

  Some thoughts...

  Change your pricing structure. Your upgrade pricing is ridiculous. You
wanted me to buy an *upgrade* for $145. Why should I do that, when for
another $50 I could buy Watcom-C and purchase a compiler that I don't have
to think about cross-platform compatibility?

  Bring your current codebase up to the standards of the other compiler
vendors. Make it easier to port existing OS/2 based code to your compiler
without resorting to work arounds. FIX THE BUGS EVEN IF THERE ARE KNOWN
WORK AROUNDS. I know my customers would be EXTREMELY unhappy if I told them
that I wouldn't fix a bug in my code. "No, I won't fix that, you need
to apply this bandaid to smooth out the working of the code." Sounds
really nice doesn't it? This is what you have said to us.

  In short, show a better attitude towards OS/2 in general. My knee-jerk
reaction to this post was that you were offering a token jesture to those
of us who use your compiler to earn a living. If you are honestly wanting
to gather ideas that will make BC++ for OS/2 better, stop bringing up
Windows and concentrate on your OS/2 products. The prevailing attitude that
Windows is the be-all-end-all of the computer world is nothing more than
lemmings following the hype. By producing an OS/2 based compiler you are
investing in the future of the industry. Don't blow it, you have a fine
compiler here. Don't rest on your laurels, fix the current problems and
keep moving ahead. Quit treating those of us who are moving towards the
future as if we are Don Quixote chasing after wind-mills.

  Until you change *your* attitude about OS/2 and developing OS/2 products,
BC++ for OS/2 will remain where it has; As a toy. Not for serious work. I
use your compiler for all my development work, but I don't recommend it to
anyone. I have been a loyal Borland customer for a number of years. I am
said to say though, that my attitude towards you is changing rapidly.

    Thank you,

Craig
cam{at}wpc.cioe.com


___ timEd/2-B9

--- timEd/2-B9