Jerry Pournelle of "Byte" magazine wrote in February 1984 that Turbo Pascal "comes close to what I think the computer industry is headed for: well documented, standard, plenty of good features, and a reasonable price". Pournelle disliked the requirement to buy another license to distribute binaries, but noted that "it turns out not to be a lot more. Borland only wants another $100" more than the $49.95 base price, and that "my first impression of Turbo is that it's probably worth $149.95. It looks to do everything MT+ "with the Speed Programming Package" does, and maybe even do it faster and better". He reported in July that, according to Kahn, IBM had refused to resell Turbo Pascal unless the price was at least $200; Pournelle noted that "Turbo is much better than the Pascal IBM sells", and unlike the latter was compatible with the IBM PCjr. Three "Byte" reviewers praised Turbo Pascal in the same issue. One called the DOS version "without doubt, the best software value I have ever purchased", and another called the CP/M version "an excellent product ... deserves praise for this high-value product". The third stated that it was "not a good compiler for developing massive applications", but added that it was greatly superior to BASIC, the programming language usually associated with home computers at the time. He concluded that Turbo Pascal was "a bargain that shouldn't be passed up".