> > I sort of agree but I feel very strongly that [i]volunteers[/i] should not be > [i]forced[/i] to upgrade at a time which suits somebody else. >
As I understand it no one was forced to upgrade. I am still running several V4 clients and they continue to run, sending in results and getting new work with only a slight interruption back at the peak of the "crisis". > Also, in my experience, when you are trying to deal with a problem caused by > a > hardware failure, that is the [i]very worst[/i] time to make any major change > to a system. > Yes, I think we all understand that you think you would have handled it better if you were in charge. And it continues to frustrate you that we do not all instantly agree with you. I'm not claiming the planning or handling of the problem is/was perfect nor that things might not have been done better some other way, just that it was good enuf that your complaints seem excessive. > Finally, I feel that v5 must be a poor design if it cannot cope > [i]transparently[/i] with v4 clients >From what I have seen it is coping fine. No data has been lost. There are still some cosmetic details to be touched up but I really don't see the problem. I have seen smaller projects with bigger budgets with fully planned and scripted transitions make much larger messes of things than this. I think I am getting my moneys worth out of the electricity and wear and tear and cpu time I have spent. In fact some of the new reports look pretty cool. _______________________________________________ Prime mailing list [email protected] http://hogranch.com/mailman/listinfo/prime
