I don't see how you concluded that this point was missed. It still doesn't mean that it's not legitimate to look at the performance gains these 306$ might give people who are willing to invest them.
I made a small bet with someone from management that our company will be asked by a customer to run our software on Linux before the end of 2003, the Intel compiler might be a good investment for us (we are aware of at least one customer where our performance already was the breaking point to make us win a deal over the competition). > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Feiglin > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 4:15 PM > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Intel compiler vs. gcc > > > Aren't we missing something here: The $305.99 price tag. > > Oh, and let's not forget that dear old open source GCC can > function as a > full cross compiler which also costs. We're stuck with Intel for now, > but who knows what we'll be using in a few years from now? Anyone > remember DEC, DG, Interdata ... > > Ah me! Sic tranit gloria RMS. > > Daniel > > Michael Sternberg wrote: > > Somebody tried Intel C++ Compiler 7.0 for Linux ? > > > http://www.programmersparadise.com/Product.pasp?txtCatalog=Par adise&txtCategory=&txtProductID=I23+0A12 > > They claim 30% performance gain on gcc 3.2.. > > Michael ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
