Mr. Zack Urlocker of Borland wrote in Delphi Informant, September issue,
about the first 'marathon'. He said:

        "After we had finished Delphi 1, Gary Whizin, the Director of
Delphi Development, used to joke that it was like running a 10K race,
then discovering you had entered a marathon. It was certainly no sprint
to the finish, but rather, a lot of hard slogging. We set our goal and
the worked to achive the milestones that would lead us to the goal. We've
found it to be a pretty good way to do things."
        "...we paced ourselves, slogged through the hard parts, and yes,
finished on time. I've shipped quite a few products in my career, but
Delphi 1 stands alone. I'ts the product I'm most proud of."

It was indeed an excellent race. With no hassle, with no potential
challenger. He went further stating how they had a head start with
the second race, to ship Delphi 2 within one year. What happened next
is now good history.

But there's one thing that caught my attention. It was the
editor's note:

    "He's (referring to Zack) currently working on the next Delphi
'marathon'"!              

What the heck is this next marathon? Delphi 3? or Delphi 1.5?
Should they go on and maintain their lead? Should they go back on the
race track and wait for those slow challengers? Or both?

Whatever it is, I think the clamor now is for Borland to go back and
have Delphi 1 restructured to have the full excellent features of
Delphi 2.

What do you think, fellow Delphi programmers?

No, it's "Hear, hear."
But, Please let's not start a thread about this non-Delphi topic :)
  Bob
--
+---------------------------------------+
|    Bob Peck : bp...@prairienet.org    |
+---------------------------------------+

Personally I would like to see D3(and all its {*word*226} features) first but
then we are in the enviable position of being able to dictate which
route our customers take!

--
[These opinions are my own and not those of my employer]

BRING BACK MULTIHELP!!!
--
Greg Postlewait Consulting
http://www.teleport.com/~gpost/gpc.htm

Cheers, Ken

In article <3249757D....@valstar.co.uk>, e...@valstar.co.uk says...

Andreas

=============================================
helicon software development - Andreas Prucha
Baden/Vienna, Austria - heli...@helicon.co.at
===Sorry, no kangaroos - Schnitzel instead===

Here's my blurb, try not to fall asleep, OK :)

Microsoft is currently getting ready for the second beta of VB 5.0,
which is 32-bit only.  Technically speaking, VB 5.0 will lacks
features that D1 has had since the beginning.  VB 5.0 *STILL* requires
a runtime file, is not object oriented, and has minimal pointer
support, to name but a few issues.

Borland will likely go ahead and produce Delphi 1.5; Microsoft on the
other hand, has effectively killed off all of it's 16-bit development
platforms.  Visual C++ 1.5x and VB 3.0 (VB 4.0 16-bit is horrendous
piece of software) are the only tools left, and they are aging
rapidly.

There will be people out there that will be saying that the 16-bit
world is dead and should be left alone.  Myself, and many others, feel
that there is still quite a bit of life left in developing
applications for the 16-bit platforms, since not everyone is moving to
Win95/NT, simply because of hardware requirements and the $$$
involved.

Borland appears to still be committed to 16-bit development tools,
whereas Microsoft is not.  This is where they have a great opportunity
to take a chunk out of the VB market share.  If people use Delphi 1.x,
they will likely also use the 32-bit Delphi.  That's what I did after
4+ years of using VB.

In article <32505e1c.9334...@{*word*104}news.{*word*104}us.ca>,

        JAM 7 and Prolifics from JYACC,
        Uniface,
        Unify,
        Forte,
        Dy{*word*193},
        Galaxy,
        etc, etc.

Its just that these vendors made the effort to keep several
versions of code (actually, all of these maintain dozens of
versions, for Unix, VMS, OS/2, the Web, etc).

Now, they have an easier time of it because they depend on
compilers built by others, including Borland and Micro$oft!

Now, there is no reason you can't make new versions of your code
work with old compilers.  In fact, often your customers are stuck
on old database versions, or OS's, etc, and those libraries
dictate a certain compiler, so you are forced to allow old
compilers to work with your tool (I think JAM support for compilers
goes back all the way to MS-C 6.0, so that Informix 5 users could
still be supported- anybody remember MS-C's oldnames.lib ;-> ).

Tool vendors always make choices, and pick different markets.  You
need to make sure YOUR customers also fall in the market of the
tool you pick.

Also, 16-bit vs. 32-bit is rarely a factor in speed with client/
server applications.  Network and database optimization are much
more important.  This is a big reason alot of people are in
no rush to go to Windows-95.

Good luck,
Mark McNulty
JYACC Consultant
mmc...@jyacc.com

Note - these views are mine and not those of JP Morgan or JYACC.

In article <32505e1c.9334...@{*word*104}news.{*word*104}us.ca>, From
bcla...@{*word*104}us.ca (Brad Clarke), the following was written:

FWIW, all of our new development is Delphi 2.0.  We will have to move
our customers  in that direction.

God Bless,

--
Jay Schwisow j...@weldnet.com
10/03/96 22:44
---------
Using: OUI PRO 1.5.0.2 from http://www.dvorak.com

On 04/10/1996 06:38, in message <09960903223950.OUI52.j...@weldnet.com>, Jay

I hope that they WILL bring out a Delphi 1.5.

Stefan

Brad,

I think that you are missing an important point.  While true, there will
be a significant market for 16 bit applications for time to come, if
Borland fails to stay with the market, they will lose significant market
share.  

Borland has finally came out with a product that is competitive, after a
series of failed products.  It is refreshing to see someone compete with
Microsoft on the higher-end products, especially a product as wonderful
as Delphi.

My true concern lives with Borland trying to diversify too quickly.  
There seem to not be enough people on staff to even handle releasing 2.0
correctly.  The help files were less than satisfactory, even after the
updated release.  Programmers are enslaved to mediocre performance with
the BDE, instead of making a simple ODBC link.

Some problems are fixed by third party vendors, but it leaves me asking
questions.  If 2.0 was released in all of its glory with such flagrant
difficulties, what will 3.0 look like after being developed without the
singularly-focused efforts of their programmers?

I honestly want Delphi to be around for quite a while.  Microsoft can
afford to do what it wants to do in the market.  They can diversify as
far as they want to.  If they make a mistake, they will buy their
competitors.  Borland has one shot to do it all.  Stay focused on one
product and Borland might have the chance to continue to compete with
Microsoft on high end products.

Matthew Flower
th...@west.net
--

In article <N.100496.165444.35@thelink>, From del...@iafrica.com (Me),
the following was written:

God Bless,

--
Jay Schwisow j...@weldnet.com
10/07/96 22:53
---------
Using: OUI PRO 1.5.0.2 from http://www.dvorak.com

Amen!

Tired of hearing this Delphi 1.5 business.  By the time Borland
released a 1.5, these Fortune 500 companies stuck on Win 3.1 will
start Win95/NT4 rollouts.  And most of these people who whined for 1.5
will end up with a 32-bit OS afterall, leaving Borland with bill for
development costs on a development environment worthy to a select few.

Businesses follow Microsoft, no matter what they do.  MS is not going
16-bit.  Go ahead and put two and two together...