.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Charles Mills
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 4:17 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Windows Softcopy Reader gotten any better?
I'm running Softcopy Reader 3.3 with a 2004 copyright
Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Hunkeler Peter (KRDO 4)
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 11:33 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Windows Softcopy Reader gotten any better?
Well I gave it another try a few weeks ago. It may have become
better
Does it still FORCE me to handle that excrementally hideous, hairless
rodent obscenely clinging to my PC by it's tail. Last I tried was Version
2.3.2. I wailed my litany of discontent to the world, and via email to the
development staff. I ended as follows:
I beg you to consider reading
Does it still FORCE me to handle that excrementally hideous, hairless
rodent obscenely clinging to my PC by it's tail? Last I tried was Version
2.3.2. I wailed my litany of discontent to the world, and via email to the
development staff. I ended as follows:
I beg you to consider reading
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf
Of Hunkeler Peter (KRDO 4)
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 11:33 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Windows Softcopy Reader gotten any better?
Well I gave it another try a few weeks ago. It may have become
better but still is not an option for me. I'm
Softcopy Reader gotten any better?
Well quirks is quirks, but I don't print much and oddball formatting seldom
makes the text unintelligible. But Softcopy Reader is clearly superior in
two respects:
1. Reverse navigation in Library Reader is maddeningly slow--by design
apparently. As long as you
I'm running Softcopy Reader 3.3 with a 2004 copyright date. It probably came
from the z/OS V1R5 DVD. It works but it has some usability quirks.
I've got the V1R7 DVD on order. Is it worth installing a newer Softcopy
Reader from the V1R7 DVD? I don't want to disturb things if it is basically
the
Charles Mills wrote:
I'm running Softcopy Reader 3.3 with a 2004 copyright date. It probably came
from the z/OS V1R5 DVD. It works but it has some usability quirks.
I've got the V1R7 DVD on order. Is it worth installing a newer Softcopy
Reader from the V1R7 DVD? I don't want to disturb things
Softcopy Reader gotten any better?
Charles Mills wrote:
I'm running Softcopy Reader 3.3 with a 2004 copyright date. It probably
came
from the z/OS V1R5 DVD. It works but it has some usability quirks.
I've got the V1R7 DVD on order. Is it worth installing a newer Softcopy
Reader from the V1R7
Go grab the latest version and put it on. They've gotten better and better
over time. If it weren't for quirks, we'd have to throw away the letter Q;
such a waste.
.
.
JO.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
626-302-7535 Office
323-715-0595 Mobile
[EMAIL
Well I gave it another try a few weeks ago. It may have become
better but still is not an option for me. I'm sticking to the old
Windows Library Reader. Still works, fast, reliable.
I contacted softcopy reader support because it wouldn't print
correctly. I was asked to send more details, samples,
11 matches
Mail list logo
