After calm reflection and a weekend of dancing I realize two things: 1. CCS has a different BUSINESS MODEL than many other software companies. OLD software thinking was to charge a lot upfront. Many new (and GNU) companies charge low (or no) money up front and then an ongoing charge for serviceing software. (Some charge astronomical fees for both.) This business model avoids the boom and bust tendency of software companies, and avoids the sticker shock seen with more expensive packages. Bear in mind, that CCS compilers will not cost less than HITECH or BYTECRAFT in the long run, just in the short run. 2. The supposed bug I raved about below was really a feature (aargh! And World War II was a Police Action.. ) They have a workaround, And they did respond, although in a very terse manner. OK these guys are NOT so bad.. -----Original Message----- From: Lawrence Lile To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU Date: Friday, March 05, 1999 12:16 PM Subject: Re: Customer Service @ CCS (was re: Bad Disk) >So far I'd agree about CCS. I've had several SHOWSTOPPING bugs, not the >least of which thier compiler will only allow you to use 24 RAM locations on >a part with 72 RAM locations. I create a program that theoretically should >run fine on my part, and I get OUT OF RAM errors because their compiler >won't allow it. I've waited two days now for an answer, and I know the >answer will be: > >SEND US $99 > > >well... it was cheap..... > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jim Dolson >To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU >Date: Thursday, March 04, 1999 6:52 PM >Subject: Customer Service @ CCS (was re: Bad Disk) > > >>Dear Fellow PIC-Listers >> >>A word of caution to anyone else on the list that uses the CCS compiler - >make >>sure you have a good copy of your orginal disk. I thought that spending >$99 on >>a compiler was going to save me money. Now, just to replace a corrupted >disk, >>I'm going to end up spending: