Hi Roy, Rowing again....
On Sat, 9 Nov 2002 19:31:37 +0000 Roy Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In message <00a401c287fe$d067c620$4f6887d9@asusone>, dndsystems1 > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >> D&D, according to their adverts, are selling a patched version. > >> > >> This is precisely what Wolfgang is striving to avoid. > > > >You're not still on about that are you, I can't belive it. Look at it > >like this there are 2 versions of 2.98, the first was flawed, the > >second was fixed. The second version makes the Q60 behave like other > >platforms _adding_ to uniformity across platforms. The first version > >makes the Q60 behave like nothing else because it is wrong. > You seem to deliberately want to misunderstand the concepts here. Your > 'patched version' made my Q40 crash. It was, therefore, not fully > correct either. Had you taken the trouble to become resellers and had > you wanted to you could have submitted the patched code to Wolfgang and > had it tested and incorporated into the system. You did none of these > things and you made no attempt to find out why it crashed my Q 40 at > Hove. 'It works on the machine I am selling so that is all I need to > know' is not good enough if you are to lay any claim to be part of the > system. If I remember correctly, you asked me for a copy to try on your Q40, when you came back, and said that it did not work, I said, when get a Q60 it is better than the Q40. As you see we were there to sell the Q60. > There have been many occasions where users have reported things > to me that crashed on their system and worked on mine but I always made > the effort to try to find out why. This is called support. If you patch > a version of SMSQ/E and distribute it will get out to other systems > because we are all in communication (mostly) and other people will try > it out on other machines and then......chaos. OK, I do understand the word support, it is a pity no one supported me. I have never patched any version of SMSQ/E, as if this is required, then the software writer has not done his job correctly, in producing a bug free piece of software. > You could be saying there has to be a version of SMSQ/E specially for the Q60. If >so you must > discuss this with Wolfgang. This is inprogress I can not really see any way of exploiting a the native machines potential. This is a real sticking here and probably why there are no good applications programs for the SMSQ/E system now. OK, one is comming and I will buy it. > No version of SMSQ/E for any platform other than QPC2 was created for > release at a workshop. TT would never be left alone long enough to do > it. There have been tweaks done at workshops but these were not > distributed to the general public. OK, seems like a first, or is that a Bob Weeks/Nasta FORST > The situation with the early Aurora was indeed chaotic I agree and I > want to avoid a repetition of it. It is possible, therefore, that you > ads mislead us when you said 'it has been corrected' Yes I agree, also add in Q40 SMSQ/E v2.92 to v2.98 which did not work correctly on the Q40 you sold me. I used the Q40 for BBS and until the details of the patch appeared in Quanta Volume 18 Issue 7 August 2001, the system did not work correctly. Phil Borman's BBS used to not send the mail to my BBS with the Pbox mailer due to the bug introduced, which the patch or bug fix correctly. If Mr Tebby had done job right then the code would not be patched. But since I could not get an eprom version it stayed on the shelf and the BBS moved back the Supergold card and it is now on QPC. Can we get on with programming the systems. Get all this interenet access sorted, I do not want to use Linux or Windows. Derek
