On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 at 20:21:05, Phoebus Dokos wrote:
(ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Wed, 6 Oct 2004 01:09:28 +0100,() Tony Firshman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /wrote:
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 at 19:34:36, Phoebus Dokos wrote:
(ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Ôçí Wed, 6 Oct 2004 00:08:05 +0100,ï(ç) Tony
Geoff writes:
The status of Perfection is an old chestnut on this list and exactly the
same things are being said as the last time the thread appeared. And the
time before that. And the time before that. And ..the ...time
before. zz. (snore).
No one knows what the status of
In a message dated 05/10/04 19:48:34 GMT Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I use Perfection with SMSQE (v3.07) and it works well. However I had to
alter
my version because at one point the register D1 no longer contained what
the
authors expected. I reported this alteration in QL
- Original Message -
From: P Witte
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Perfection
I can only apologise for my tardy reaction. Im not one of those few
people
who have had experience of chasing up old software, but Im all for it. In
particular, Id be interested in updated versions of QLiberator
- Original Message -
From: Phoebus Dokos [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Perfection
.
Not entirely true :-) I submitted that idea to my graduating supervisor
professor at the uni and I was approved :-) That means that the ql-archive
will be a reality (that is if I want to
P Witte wrote:
snip
I can only apologise for my tardy reaction. Im not one of those few people
who have had experience of chasing up old software, but Im all for it. In
particular, Id be interested in updated versions of QLiberator and EasyPtr.
Id even be prepared to pay a reasonably unreasonable
Geoff writes:
QLiberator had two authors and one, whom I believe has the only copies of
the code, has disappeared. (I put that in inverted commas as we amateur
genealogists have means of tracing people whether dead or alive)
Surely someone on this list must know the name of the 'disappeared'
François Van Emelen writes:
P Witte wrote:
snip
What do you mean by
'Id even be prepared to pay a reasonably unreasonable amount for the
privilege'
reasonable reasonably reasonable reasonably unreasonable unreasonable
Reasonably clear?
Per
Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:23:21 +0100,() gwicks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Phoebus Dokos [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Perfection
.
Not entirely true :-) I submitted that idea to my graduating supervisor
professor at the uni and I was approved :-) That
